ASSESSMENT OF FLOOD INUNDATION AND RISK MAPPING:

A CASE STUDY OF BILATE RIVER, RIFT VALLEY LAKES BASIN,

ETHIOPIA

ANDINET W/MESKEL

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HYDRAULIC

ENGINEERING, COLLEGE OF BIO SYSTEMS AND ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEERING, SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES HAWASSA
UNIVERSITY, ETHIOPIA

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE

OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN
HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING

MAY, 2022

I
 ADVISORS’ APPROVAL SHEET
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
HAWASSA UNIVERSITY ADVISORS’ APPROVAL SHEET
(Submission Sheet-1)

This is to certify that the thesis entitled Assessment of Flood Inundation and Risk Mapping:
A Case Study of Bilate River, Rift Valley Lakes Basin, Ethiopia” submitted in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master's with specialization in Hydraulic
Engineering, the Graduate Program of the Department/School of Bio Systems And
Environmental Engineering, and has been carried out by Andinet Woldemeskel Gebre ID. No.
GPHhydrW/0001/12, under my/our supervision. Therefore I/we recommend that the student has
fulfilled the requirements and hence hereby can submit the thesis to the department.

_______________________ _______________ _______________

Name of major advisor Signature Date

_______________________ _______________ _______________

Name of co-advisor (if there is any) Signature Date

ii
APPROVAL PAGE
We, the undersigned, members of the Board of Examiners of the final open defense by Mr.
Andinet Woldemeskel Gebre have read and evaluated his thesis entitled “Assessment of Flood
Inundation and Risk Mapping: A Case Study of Bilate River, Rift Valley Lakes Basin,
Ethiopia” and examined the candidate. This is, therefore, to certify that the thesis has been
accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree.

________________________ _______________ ___________

Name of Major Advisor Signature Date

________________________ _______________ ___________

Name of Internal Examiner-I Signature Date

________________________ _______________ ___________

Name of Internal Examiner-II Signature Date

________________________ _______________ ___________

Name of External examiner Signature Date

________________________ _______________ ___________

SGS Approval Signature Date

iii
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this MSc Specialty or equivalent thesis is my original work and has not
been presented for a degree in any other university, and all sources of material used for this
thesis/dissertation have been duly acknowledged.

Name: Andinet Woldemeskel

Signature:________________

This MSc Specialty or equivalent thesis has been submitted for examination with my approval
as thesis advisor.

Name: Dr. Abebe Tadesse(PhD)

Signature: ________________

Place and Date of Submission: _____________________________

iv
Abstract
Rivers are the main water sources for human and animals’ lives. Unfortunately, they have been
frequently damaged by flooding. Flooding has affected and threatened not only human’s lives
and infrastructures but also the environmental capital. This study aims to determine the
assessment of flood inundation and risk mapping integrated with the Arc SWAT, Arc GIS and
HEC-RAS 2Dmodels to prepare Flood frequency analysis for 10, 25, 50, 100 and 200-years
return period was done by Gumbel’s and Log Pearson Type III probability distributions method
based on maximum instantaneous flow recorded, a return period flood hazard map in the lower
Bilate River. The approach adopted for this study used Arc SWAT land use/land cover result
input consisted of dividing the risk into vulnerability associated with land use/ land cover pattern
and hazard associated with hydrological and hydraulic parameters. The results of these analyses
were depicts flood depth-land use/land cover.A 17-year peak discharge (BilateTena and Halaba
gauging station) with a multi-return period of 10, 25, 50, 100 and 200 years was estimated by
using two distributions method. Software is used to test the best distribution for the input of the
HEC-RAS model to prepare the estimation of the corresponding floodplain areas. The results
showed that Gumbel’s distribution analysis of the return period of 10, 25, 50, 100 and 200years
is the best fits. The classification of flood depth area showed most of the flooding area had water
depth greater than 3m. The assessment of the flood areas indicated that a large percentage (more
than 79 %) of the vulnerable area was cropland land followed grassland and shrub land regularly
flooded river comprising 10.8% and 2.35% respectively. Overall, Arc SWAT and HEC-RAS
with its flood hazard map is a model that can estimate the level of flood depth in the Lower
Bilate River, rift valley basin and is useful in providing information about the depth and
characteristics of floods for river communities. While the 2D HEC-RAS simulation model
showed the return period of floods 10 and 200 years for 0.01m and 3m depth of flooding is stable
compared to the flood peaks discharges. 69,263, 9,460 and 5,725 hectares of cropland, grassland
and shrub land areas are respectively inundated by 10-year flood. Similarly, 207,789, 28,380 and
17,181 hectare of cropland, grassland and shrub areas are respectively inundated by a 200-year
flood.

Keywords: ArcGIS, food hazard, flood vulnerability, flood risk, HEC-RA

v
Acknowledgements
Above all, I would like to thank the Almighty God for all the things done for me in my entire
life, for especially gave me the strength and patience to complete this work. I am deeply indebted
to my advisor Dr.AbebeTadesse(PhD) for his support, suggestions and encouragement
throughout my research and thesis writing. I am grateful to all my instructors and all the staffs of
HawassaUniversity, Ministry of Water Resource And Energy for their cooperation in my field
work to achieve my objectives. Lastly, I would like to thank my wife for her patience and
support and all those who have not been mentioned here but helped in different phases in
completion of this thesis work.

vi
Contents
ADVISORS’ APPROVAL SHEET........................................................................................................................ ii
APPROVAL PAGE .......................................................................................................................................... iii
DECLARATION .............................................................................................................................................. iv
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements...................................................................................................................................... vi
Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................................... x
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................... xi
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................... xii
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 General ................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2. Statement of the problem ................................................................................................................. 4
1.3. Objective of the study ........................................................................................................................ 5
1.3.1. General objective ........................................................................................................................ 5
1.3.2. Specific objectives ....................................................................................................................... 5
1.4. Research questions ............................................................................................................................ 5
1.5. Significance of the study .................................................................................................................... 5
1.6. Scope of the study ............................................................................................................................. 5
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................................................. 7
2.1 Flood ................................................................................................................................................... 7
2.2 River Flood .......................................................................................................................................... 8
2.3 Risk and Hazard ................................................................................................................................. 10
2.4. Flood disaster in Ethiopia ................................................................................................................. 10
2.4.1. Abay River Basin ........................................................................................................................ 11
2.4.2. Awash River Basin ..................................................................................................................... 11
2.4.3. Baro-Akobo River Basin............................................................................................................. 11
2.4.4. Omo-Gibe River Basin ............................................................................................................... 11
2.4.5. Rift Valley Lakes Basin ............................................................................................................... 12
2.4.6. Tekeze River Basin..................................................................................................................... 12
2.4.7. Wabi-Shebele River Basin ......................................................................................................... 12
2.5. The Catchment Hydrologic Cycle ..................................................................................................... 12
2.6. Rainfall runoff modelling ................................................................................................................. 13
2.7. Hydrologic data and goodness of Fit Test ........................................................................................ 14

vii
 2.8. Flood frequency analysis and Probability distributions of hydrologic variables ............................. 15
2.9. Tools and Models for Flood Analysis and Mapping ......................................................................... 16
2.9.1. Digital Elevation Model (DEM) .................................................................................................. 16
2.9.2. Geographical Information System (GIS).................................................................................... 16
2.9.3. The HEC-HMS Model ................................................................................................................. 17
2.9.4. HEC-RAS .................................................................................................................................... 17
2.10. Flood Analysis and Flood Risk Assessment .................................................................................... 18
3. MATERIAL AND METHOD ........................................................................................................................ 21
3.1. Study Area Description .................................................................................................................... 21
3.1.1 Climate ....................................................................................................................................... 22
3.1.2 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................... 22
3.1.3 Soil data...................................................................................................................................... 23
3.1.4 Land use Data ............................................................................................................................. 23
3.2Material Used..................................................................................................................................... 25
3.3 Data Collection .................................................................................................................................. 25
3.3.1 Meteorological Data .................................................................................................................. 25
3.3.2 Hydrological Data ....................................................................................................................... 25
3.3.3 Topographic Data ....................................................................................................................... 26
3.4 Methodology..................................................................................................................................... 26
3.4.1 Research Framework ................................................................................................................. 26
3.4.2 Data Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 27
3.4.3 SWAT Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 28
3.5. Flood Frequency Analysis................................................................................................................. 31
3.5.1. The Gumbel’s Method .............................................................................................................. 32
3.5.2. The Log Pearson Type III Method ............................................................................................. 33
3.6 Theoretical Basis for Two-Dimensional Unsteady Flow Calculations (HEC-RAS) Hydraulic modeling
................................................................................................................................................................ 33
3.7HEC RAS application ........................................................................................................................... 33
3.7.1 Assigning a Projection ................................................................................................................ 34
3.7.2 Creating the 2D Flow Area ......................................................................................................... 35
3.7.3 Setting Boundary Conditions ..................................................................................................... 37
3.7.4 Establish Flow Conditions along the Boundaries ....................................................................... 38
3.7 Sensitivity analysis............................................................................................................................ 39

viii
 3.7.1 Model calibration ....................................................................................................................... 40
3.7.2 Model validation ........................................................................................................................ 40
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION...................................................................................................................... 41
4.1Results of Arc SWAT Model ............................................................................................................... 41
4.1.1 Hydraulic Response Units/HRUs/ Analysis................................................................................. 41
4.2. Sensitivity analysis........................................................................................................................... 45
4.2.1. Model calibration and validation .............................................................................................. 46
4.3 Unsteady Flow and Flood risk Analysis ............................................................................................. 49
4.4Flood Inundation Map ....................................................................................................................... 52
4.4.1Flood Hazard Mapping ................................................................................................................ 54
4.4.2Flood Vulnerability Analysis ........................................................................................................ 55
4.4.3Flood Risk Mapping ..................................................................................................................... 57
5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................... 60
5.1 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 60
5.2Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 61
6. REFERNCES .............................................................................................................................................. 63
Annexs ......................................................................................................................................................... 66
Annex A1; Table ...................................................................................................................................... 66
Annex tableA2 ......................................................................................................................................... 67
Annex able A3 ......................................................................................................................................... 68
Annex table A4 ........................................................................................................................................ 68
Annex table B1 ........................................................................................................................................ 69
Annex Table B2 ....................................................................................................................................... 76
Annex C1: Flood simulation result Map zoomed .................................................................................... 88
Annex C2: Flood Inundation Map for 25, 50 and 100 years return period............................................. 90

ix
Acronyms
BOFED Bureau of Finance and Economic Development

BTOPMC Block-wise use of TOPMODEL using Muskingum-Cunge flow routing

DEM Digital Elevation Model

DPPA Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Agency

ESRI Environmental science Research Institute

FSAs Flood by Postal Code Regions or Forward Sortation Areas

FAO Food and Agricultural Organization

GIS Geographical Information System

GUI Graphical user interface

HEC-RAS Hydraulic Engineering Center for River Analysis System

IWMI International Water Management Institute

LULC Land Use Land Cover

RAS River Analysis System

RS Remote Sensing

RVLB Rift Valley Lakes Basin

SEI Stockholm Environmental Institute

SNNPR Southern Nation Nationality and People Region

SWAT Soil and Water Assessment Tool

TIN Triangular Irregular Network

USGS Unite States Geological Survey

WMI Water Mine and Energy

NMSA Ethiopian National Meteorological Services Agency

x
List of Figures

Figure 3. 1Study Area Location .................................................................................................... 21

Figure 3. 2SWAT Hydrology process .......................................................................................... 22
Figure 3. 3 Soil data map .............................................................................................................. 23
Figure 3. 4 Land Use/land cover Map (Ethiopian_sentinel2_LULC2016) .................................. 24
Figure 3. 5 Schematic Representation of the Study ...................................................................... 27
Figure 3. 6 SWAT model output interface.................................................................................... 28
Figure 3. 7 Average flow comparison BilateTena and Halaba Station......................................... 32
Figure 3. 8 The main HEC-RAS window with the title and file name ......................................... 34
Figure 3. 9 The RAS MAPPER window with spatial reference projection.................................. 35
Figure 3. 10 HEC-RAS terrain Window ....................................................................................... 35
Figure 3. 11 Bilate 2D flow area ................................................................................................... 36
Figure 3. 12 Boundary condition .................................................................................................. 37
Figure 3. 13 Fow condition along the boundary ........................................................................... 38
Figure 4. 2Arc SWAT produced Soil and Land use map ............................................................. 43
Figure 4. 3 Schematic representation of hydrologic cycle (Water balance) components flow
simulation...................................................................................................................................... 44
Figure 4. 4 SWAT land use summary........................................................................................... 45
Figure 4. 5 Average monthly observed and simulated flow hydrograph during the calibration
(1998-2014) phase at BilateTena Station. ..................................................................................... 48
Figure 4. 6 Average monthly observed and simulated flow hydrograph during the validation
phase at BilateTena Station. .......................................................................................................... 48
Figure 4. 7 Unsteady flow simulation ........................................................................................... 49
Figure 4. 8 Return period by Gumbel’s Method ........................................................................... 51
Figure 4. 9 Flood Frequency by the Log Pearson Type III Method ............................................. 52
Figure 4. 10 Flood inundation for 10 and 200 years return period. .............................................. 53
Figure 4. 11 Flood inundation Map .............................................................................................. 54
Figure 4. 12 Flood hazard map of the study area .......................................................................... 55
Figure 4. 13 Vulnerability Map of 10-years and 200- years flood return period.......................... 57
Figure 4. 14 Flood risk map of the study area. ............................................................................. 58

xi
List of Tables
Table 2. 1 Factors Contributing to River Flood .............................................................................. 9

Table 3. 1 Hydrological data ......................................................................................................... 25

Table 3. 2 Mean Monthly Discharge of BilateTena and Halaba Station ...................................... 32
Table 3. 3 Sensitivity class for SWAT model (Source: (Lenhart et al, 2002)) ............................. 39

Table 4. 1 Land use/land cover, soil and slope ............................................................................. 41

Table 4. 2 HRU definition ............................................................................................................ 42
Table 4. 3 Monthly River basin value ........................................................................................... 45
Table 4. 4 Calibrated flow parameters, their rank and fitted value.Note: (V tells the replacement
of the parameter with the fitted value.R tells the multiplication of the parameter by (1 + a given
value)). .......................................................................................................................................... 46
Table 4. 5 Calibrated flow parameters, their rank and fitted value.Note: V tells the replacement of
the parameter with the fitted value.R tells the multiplication of the parameter by (1 + a given
value)............................................................................................................................................. 46
Table 4. 6 Flood Frequency by the Gumbel’s Method ................................................................. 50
Table 4. 7 Return period by Log Pearson Type III Method.......................................................... 50
Table 4. 8 Flood Hazard classification ......................................................................................... 54
Table 4. 9 Classification of Flood Area according to LULC Vulnerability ................................. 56

xii
1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 General
Flooding is a common natural disaster with a devastating and widespread effect responsible for
economic losses and mortality. This natural hazard is reported to comprise a significant
proportion of the total number of reported natural disasters around the globe. It is a problem not
only for developing countries, but also for developed countries. Considering the influence of
climate change on the hydrological cycle (especially on the pattern and intensity of
precipitation), the occurrence and severity of these events might increase in the future.
According to Mihu-Pintilie et al. and Lea et al. the occurrence of climate-related disasters has
seriously risen in a number of regions of the world due to the influence of abrupt changes on
hydro-climatic conditions and other disturbances. Another potential factor influencing the
occurrence of flood events is land-use change and the development of socio-economic activities
in flood prone areas. Such actions influence the natural behavior of a river’s hydrology and
floodplains’ response to a flood hazard. Due to the complex nature of these drivers, they are not
completely preventable. However, it is possible to reduce the related risks if adequate flood risk
management strategies with information about the flood prone areas is available beforehand. The
understanding, assessment and prediction of floods and their influence have been a necessity for
a long time. With recent advancements in computing power as well as technology, this has
become more accessible. In addition, Geographical Information Systems (GIS) coupled with
Remote Sensing (RS) data have significantly facilitated the generation of flood hazard mapping.
Remote sensing not only provides input data for model construction, but also provides data for
model validation.

The combination of climate, hydrological and hydrodynamic models has extended the primary
purpose from simple inundation-area identification towards the formulation of climate adaptation
and risk-mitigation strategies. However, the complex nature of flooding events as well as the
uncertainties related to modelling result in significant challenges for accurate and rapid flood
modelling at high resolutions. In general, the concept of flood risk management describes a
system, where flood forecasting and flood warning systems play a key role. Flood hazard
assessment, through inundation mapping and identification of flood risk zones, is the core
element for formulating any flood management strategy.

1
Flood inundation modelling serves an important role of obtaining spatial distribution information
on inundation patterns (such as water depth and flow velocity. This could inform on the severity
of the hazard, any threats to public safety and potential financial losses. Further, they could be
used to support emergency management actions and mitigation policies for future flooding
events. They are also critical for informing the public and policy makers and to receiving support
for the formation of suitable governance.

The primary tools for performing flood inundation mapping are hydraulic/hydrodynamic models.
They are mostly used for the simulation of flood events, estimation of vulnerable areas, flood
management planning and the determination of spatially distributed variables of interest. In
general, they describe the fluid motion and the dynamics of the flood wave by solving
mathematical equations, which are based on the principles of the conservation of mass and
momentum. Depending on the study area as well as the purpose of the project, the user can
choose between models with different dimensionalities (1D, 2D, etc.), numerical schemes (finite
volume, finite difference, etc.), mesh representations (structured, unstructured, etc.) and
equations (Kinematic Wave, Diffusion Wave, Muskingum, etc.). Mihu-Pintilie et al., Patel et al.
and Shustikova et al. have stated that 1D modeling represents the channel processes accurately,
but for the assessment of flood wave dynamics in the floodplain, when the capacity of the
channel has been exceeded and the flow is spread across a large area in the downstream terrain,
2D would be a better choice. Morsy et al. recommend using fully 2D models with a high degree
of detail on the terrain for the purpose of avoiding the uncertainties and limitations, which can
arise from the incorrect interpretation of flood dynamics and the inaccurate representation of the
relief. According to (Teng et al. and Dasallas et al.), 2D models are mostly used for flood extent
mapping and flood risk estimation, as they provide more detailed and reliable results in complex
flow simulations. 2D models that solve full shallow water equations are reported to have the
capacity to simulate the timing and duration of inundation with high accuracy, though they are
data-intensive and have a high computational demand. These disadvantages restrict their use for
real-time flood forecasting. In the same study, it was reported that they are not viable for areas
larger than 1000 km2, if a resolution of less than 30 m and/or multiple model runs are required.
This study utilized the 2D capacity of HEC-RAS, which has according to the literature review, a
wide range of applications and deploys different schematization complexities. For example, by
coupling Arc SWAT, GIS and HEC-RAS a system, which can generate flood inundation maps

2
for a given precipitation event. Floods can be explained as excess flows exceeding the
transporting capacity of river channel, lakes, ponds, reservoirs, drainage system, dam and any
other water bodies, whereby water inundates outside water bodies areas. Floods are natural
phenomena that occur when streams, rivers, and lakes overflow their banks (Golshan et al.,
2016). In the context of natural disasters, floods are defined by the amount of damage they cause
to people or property. If people did not inhabit flood-prone areas, the natural phenomena of a
river exceeding its notional capacity and overflowing into the surrounding areas lead a natural
disaster, property damage of any country (Jongman et al., 2014). However, flood disasters are
the results of the interaction between the natural phenomena with the environment, social and
economic processes. For these conditions, an integrated approach to flood assessment that
requires an understanding of social and physical vulnerability to flooding hazards as well as
knowledge of geomorphic and hydrologic characteristics of flood risks and how the society
perceives them is better to be employed (Vojtek&Vojteková, 2016).

Flood is a continuous natural and recurring event in floodplains of monsoon rainfall areas like
Ethiopia, where over 80% of annual precipitation falls in the four wet months. The flooding can
be caused by, for instance, heavy rain, snow melt, land subsidence, rising of groundwater, dam
failures. Moreover, since the industrial revolution, climate change has been clearly influencing
many environmental and social sectors; in particular, it has been showing significant impact on
water resources.

Flood is one of the major natural disasters that have been affecting many countries or regions in
the world year after year. An inundation map displays the spatial extent of probable flooding for
different scenarios and can be present either in quantitative or qualitative ways. The hazard
assessment is to identify the probability of occurrence of a specific hazard, in a specific future
time, as well as its intensity and area of impact. The inundation or hazard mapping is an essential
component of emergency action plans; it supports policy and decision makers to decide about
how to allocate resources, flood forecasting, ecological studies, and significant land use planning
in flood prone areas. The excess flows in water bodies can happen due to several factors, but
seasonal heavy rainfall is the main cause of flooding in the Bilate River Basin. The problem of
river flooding due to excess rainfall in short time and the following high river discharge is a great
concern in the Bilate River Basin, Ethiopia. In the main rainy season (June, July, August, and
September); the floodplain of the Bilate River extends to particular areas that are not normally

3
covered with water. The river or flash flooding usually occurs in the low-lying flat topographic
areas.

1.2. Statement of the problem

Flood problem is more acute in highland areas like Ethiopia under strong environmental
degradation due to population pressure mainly linked with the national topography of highland
mountains and lowland plains with natural drainage systems formed by the principal river basins.

Flood events are not new to Ethiopia, in its main rainy season, has been susceptible by quite
unprecedented flooding of abnormal magnitude and damage. Apparently, this is for the large part
due to heavy rains falling for long days on the upstream highlands, high sediment concentration
in the Bilate River resulting in silt deposition, which aggravates the flooding problem by
reducing the capacity of the channel to pass floodwater downstream. Among the major river,
flood-prone areas are parts of SNNPR and Sidama regions lying along the upper, mid and
downstream plains of the Bilate River. Bilate River is one of the rivers which cause flooding at
Wolayita Zones of SNNP regions and Sidama regions. The river conveys high runoff from upper
catchments and local rainfall on the floodplain to resulting in flooding problems. As a result, the
area has become susceptible to erosion and flood events. The study area has diverse topography
ranging from very flat to dissected plateaus. Such a topographic setup is believed to have been
generating heavy flooding at the low and flat areas in study area particularly in Bilate Sub-basin
of, Humbo, Deguna Fango and Loko Abaya Woredas. Bilate River initiate their courses from
relatively higher elevations and the immediate catchment areas are poorly covered exposing the
flat areas to heavy flood during the rainy season.

In practice, flooding occurs when the volume of water in a river or stream exceeds the capacity
of the channel. The very flat lands of the area, especially flood plains in Humbo, Deguna Fango
and Loko Abaya Woredas are susceptible to flooding in every year during the rainy season. As a
result, people have to evacuate. Further, crops in a large extent of areas are submerged leading to
human socio-economic sufferings. Hence Arc SWAT, GIS and HEC-RAS is the best assemblage
of computer equipment and a set of computer programs for the entry and editing, storage, query
and retrieval, transformation, analysis and display of the factors affecting flood hazard. One of
the most common approaches in the flood risk and flood hazard study. The specific issue of this

4
study was to assess the flood inundation and risk mapping by integrating the Hydrologic and
hydraulic model with ArcGIS in the study area.

1.3. Objective of the study

1.3.1. General objective
The main objective of the study was to assess flood inundation and prepare risk mapping in
RVLB/Rift Valley Lakes Basin/ of Bilate River, Ethiopia.

1.3.2. Specific objectives

 To investigate the rainfall-runoff estimation of the study area.
 To investigate the probability distribution for the best return period of flood by considering
the actual socio economy in the study area.
 To prepare flood hazard inundation, flood vulnerability, and Risk map.

1.4. Research questions

 What is the current situation flood hazard looks like in the area?
 What is the return period for the extreme flood?
 What kind of flood vulnerability, hazard and risk occur in the area?

1.5. Significance of the study

The study helps to manage and regulate the flood risk and inundation at the study areas. Besides,
the approach in this study varies from the other studies in its consideration of the flow discharge
modeling on the entire basin in the initial stage, and later hydraulic modeling, based on the
outputs of the hydrologic model, for flood risk and inundation assessment. The methodology and
the results can be used by policymakers, researchers, civil society, and national, state and local
government officials responsible for disaster management to help them understand the physical
and socio-economic interrelationships while dealing with flood nature and characteristics so as to
reduce the consequences.

1.6. Scope of the study

The scope of the study is to determine the hydrologic & hydraulic consequences associated with
flood risks by combining land use vulnerability and the magnitude and extent of flood hazard.
The study focused particularly at risk areas especially downstream parts of Bilate River. This
research also included an analysis of the effects of flooding on the most vulnerable, cropland
area. The cost of crop damage due to flooding will be determine. So the effect of flooding on the

5
crop will estimate based on the change in production. Since the area are agricultural, the overall
flood risk where crop filed affected and lost crop damage will be quantified and prepared
inundation risk map.

6
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Flood
Flood is a natural process that can happen at any time in a wide variety of locations. Worldwide,
many river floodplains contain critical infrastructure that is vulnerable to extreme hydrologic
events(Awal and Shakya, 2007). Flooding from the sea and from rivers is probably best known
but prolonged, intense and localized rainfall can also cause sewer flooding, overland flow, and
groundwater flooding. Flooding has significant impacts on human activities; it can threaten
people’s lives, their property, and the environment. Assets at risk can include housing, transport,
and public service infrastructure, and commercial, industrial and agricultural enterprises. The
health, social, economic and environmental impacts of flooding can be significant and have a
wide community impact. The frequency, pattern, and severity of flooding are expected to
increase as a result of climate change. Development can also exacerbate the problems of flooding
by accelerating and increasing surface water run-off,(Hassan et al., 2009).

Generally, flood is among the most disastrous phenomena which is resulted from rapid increase
in river level and extreme climate changes, eventually causing overflowing of water to flat areas
(Eleuterio 2012). Due to the magnitude of this situation, the enforcement of effective initiatives
has been stressed to upgrade flood hazard mapping (Turner et al. 2013; Nor Aizam et al. 2014;
Pradhan et al. 2014; Getahun and Gebre 2015; Mokhtar et al. 2017). In order to assess the flood
hazard, flood inundation map is commonly used for predicting flood extent and it can be
produced digitally by assessing the difference between water surface elevation and in situ data
measurement of the flooded zone (Merwade et al. 2008a). Particularly, the flood inundation map
must be estimated accurately to minimize damages as well as to propagate information of the
inundated area to authorities responsible for flood operation (Jung et al. 2012; Merwade et al.
2008b; Savage et al. 2016). Despite the fact that uncertainties of the flood hazard prediction
remain crucial, it can still be solved by eliminating or identifying the uncertainties’ impact to
enhance decision making for present and future forecasting (Savage et al. 2016). For example,
uncertainties of the hydraulic model, discharge equation, and digital elevation model (DEM) are
well known for its significant influence in flood inundation modeling (Merwade et al. 2008a; Lin
et al. 2013; Tarpanelli et al. 2013a, b; Xie and Lian 2013; Yan et al. 2013). Nevertheless, the
existing uncertainties of the hydraulic variables used in the empirical equation to estimate river
discharge at data-scarce area for flood inundation mapping still require further exploration. In

7
fact, Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) model have been
purposefully employed to delineate flood depth (Knebl et al. 2005; Salimi et al. 2008;
Brandimarte and Di Baldassarre 2012; Getahun and Gebre 2015). On the other hand, various
DEMs such incorporated in HEC-RAS to obtain input data of river geometry properties (cross
sections, streamline, river bank) for flood modeling (Omer et al. 2003; Schumann et al. 2008;
Cook and Merwade 2009; Bhuyian et al. 2015; Getahun and Gebre 2015; Saksena and Merwade
2015). Based on these implementations, it can be noted that most of the previous researchers
investigated the impact of different scales of DEM resolution on the hydraulic model in flood
simulation. Specifically, to operate the HEC-RAS model, boundary condition and surface
roughness are firstly acquired and then used for flood hazards, risk mapping, and surface runoff
estimation (Alaghmand et al. 2010; Jung et al. 2012; Tarpanelli et al. 2013a, b; Ibrahim et al.
2014; Jung et al. 2014; Savage et al. 2016).

2.2 River Flood

Water is a basic requirement for sustaining life and development of society. Proper management,
protection and development of the water resources are challenges imposed by population growth,
increasing pressure on the water and land resources by competing usage, and degradation of
scarce water resources in many parts of the world. River flood is defined as a high flow that
exceeds or over-tops the capacity either the natural or the artificial banks of a stream (Hoyt and
Langbein, 1958; Walesh, 1989; Knight and Shiono, 1996; Omen, et. al. 1997; Smith and Ward,
1998). Flooding results from excessive rain on the land, streams overflowing channels or unusual
high tides or waves in coastal areas. Some of the most important factors that determine the
features of floods are rainfall event characteristics, depth of the flood, the velocity of the flow,
and duration of the rainfall event (Smith, 1996). Most floods are caused by intense precipitation
combined with other factors such as: snow melt, inadequate drainage, water-saturated ground or
unusually high tides or waves. Floods are the most damaging phenomena that effect to the social
and economic of the population (Smith and Ward, 1998). There are many different types of
flooding. The most common types are: river floods, flash floods, coastal floods, urban floods and
ice jams. Many factors cause floods. In general, the reasons for increasing flooding in many parts
of the world are climatologically, changes in land-use and increasing population and land
subsidence (Smith and Ward, 1998).

8
Floods result from a combination of meteorological and hydrological extremes. In most cases,
floods are additionally influenced by human factors. Although these influences are very diverse,
they generally tend to aggravate flood hazards by accentuating river flood peaks. Thus river
flood hazards in built environments have to be seen as the consequence of natural and man-made
factors. The factors contributing to river flood can be categorized into three classes;
meteorological factors, hydrological factors and human factors. Table 2.1 shows the factors
contributing to river flood.

Table 2. 1 Factors Contributing to River Flood

Meteorological Factors Hydrological factors Human factors

 Rainfall  Soil moisture level  Surface sealing due to

 Cyclonic storms  Groundwater level prior to urbanization, deforestation)
 Small-scale storms storm increase run-off and may be
 Temperature  Natural surface infiltration sedimentation
 Snowfall and rate Presence of  Occupation of the flood plain
snowmelt impervious cover obstructing flows
 Channel cross-sectional  Inefficiency or non-
shape and roughness maintenance of infrastructure
 Presence or absence of  Too efficient drainage of
over bank flow, channel upstream areas increases flood
network peaks
 Synchronization of run-  Climate change affects
offs from various parts of magnitude and frequency of
watershed precipitations and floods
 High tide impeding  Urban microclimate may
drainage enforce precipitation events

9
2.3 Risk and Hazard
Risk is widely recognized as precisely what it implies as a possibility and often referred in term
of probability (ACS, 1998). Risk also can be defined as the probability of harmful consequences
or expected loss (of lives, people injured, property, livelihoods, economic activity disrupted or
environment damaged) resulting from interactions between natural or human-induced hazards
and vulnerable conditions. Risk is an integral part of life. It is impossible to live in a risk-free
environment. Risk is sometimes taken as synonymous with hazard but risk has additional
implication of the chance and probability a particular hazard actually occurring (Omen et al.,
1997).

Hazard is defined as threatening event, or the probability of occurrence of a potentially damaging

phenomenon within a given time period and area, while risk is expected losses (of lives, persons
injured, property damaged, and economic activity disrupted) due to a particular hazard for a
given area and reference period. In other words, risk is the actual exposure of something of
human value to hazard and often regarded as the combination of probability and loss (Chow,
1958). Hazard refers to the probability of a potentially dangerous phenomenon occurring in a
given location within a specified period of time (Alexander, 1993). Risk does not exist if
exposure to a harmful situation does not or will not occur (Omen et al., 1997). Thus, it can be
defined that hazard (or cause) as a potential threat to humans and their welfare and risk (or
consequence) as the probability of the specific hazard occurrence (Smith, 1996; Sinnakaudan et
al., 2003). Hazards include geophysical events, hydro-meteorological phenomena, and
technological circumstances that relate to accidents or failures in industrial, military and energy
generation activities. While some hazards can be considered to be exclusively natural in origin,
the spatial and temporal patterns of hazard occurrence are increasingly correlated with patterns
of human behavior and relationship with their natural environment.

2.4. Flood disaster in Ethiopia

The past, there have been floods which have taken both human lives and destroyed properties.
As a result of prolonged and intensive rainfall, the soil in most areas, particularly in the western,
central highlands and northwestern parts of the country became saturated causing an overflow of
rivers and flash floods in many areas.

10
2.4.1. Abay River Basin
Overflow of Rib and Gomara rivers and Lake Tana in Libo Kemekem and Fogera woredas of
South Gonder, Bahirdar Zuria and Bahidar town of West Gojjam and flash floods in Dewchefa
and Ansokiya woredas of Oromiya and North Shewa zones, respectively, displaced people from
their residential places and forced them to stay under temporary shelter. (DPPA, 2006)

2.4.2. Awash River Basin

Flooding of the upper basin of Awash river affected 14 peasant associations (PAs) in Sebeta
Hawas, Ilu, and Ejere woredas of Oromia region. The flood was reported to have affected a total
of 14,790 people out of which 2052 people were displaced and forced to live in temporary
shelters. On the other hand, heavy rainfall in the central highlands is considered as a major threat
around the major dams in the basin (Koka). The dams are already full and contain excessive
water. Some of them have already started to overflow. The heavy rains in the highlands of East
Hararghe Zone of Oromiya Region caused flash flood from the overflow of Dechatu dry season
stream that hit Dire Dawa town in the middle of the night on the sixth of August 2006, while
residents were asleep. According to the Dire Dawa Administration, the flood affected over 9,000
people and killed 256 others. The death toll was largely due to the fact that the flooding took
place at a time when people were in deep asleep. It has also washed away houses and properties
of many people living along the riverbank. Roads, bridges and other public properties were
damaged and washed away. The estimate of overall loss or damage of properties of individuals
and infrastructure is disclosed by the Administration to be Birr 27 million (DPPA, 2006).

2.4.3. Baro-Akobo River Basin

Reports of an overflow of Baroriver have been received from the Region. Areas affected by the
flood are Gambella Zuria, Jikawo, Itang and Gillo woredas. So far, the impact of the flood on
human beings is not yet serious. However, it has affected a large area of crop fields. All rivers in
the Region are full. High rainfall in the coming weeks in the western highlands could cause
severe flooding. Generally, the situation in the Region is worrisome calling for close monitoring
and follow-up (DPPA, 2006).

2.4.4. Omo-Gibe River Basin

The extraordinary overflow of Omo river in August severely affected about 8,000 people in
Dasenech and Gnangatom woredas of South Omo Zone. It has also killed 364 people and swept
away some 3,200 cattle and destroyed other properties, including 760 traditional grain stores.

11
This area is one of the worst affected as compared to others in the country. Efforts have been
underway to rescue and save the lives of those stranded and also find the bodies of those
drowned by the flood.

2.4.5. Rift Valley Lakes Basin

Furthermore, flashflood from Bilate River was reported to have affected 5370 households in
Humbo Woreda of Wolayita Zone out of which 2,515 households were severely affected.
Moreover, landslides due to heavy rainfall were reported from Guraghe and Kefa zones although
their impact was not as serious as that of the floods (DPPA, 2006).

2.4.6. Tekeze River Basin

According to Joint Government and Humanitarian Partners, DPPA (2006), Overflow of
Tekezeriver in Kafta Humera woreda of Western Tigray Zone has displaced 450 households,
destroyed houses and damaged crops fields.

2.4.7. Wabi-Shebele River Basin

According to recent information from the Region, as a result of an overflow of Wabishebelle
river, 3,000 and 4,500 households have been affected from Mustahil and Kelafo woredas,
respectively, and a total of 650 hectares of farmland damaged, which remains yet to be verified
(DPPA, 2006).

2.5. The Catchment Hydrologic Cycle

Catchment modelling requires a clear understanding the hydrologic cycle at catchment scale. The
catchment hydrologic cycle involves many processes. Many hydrologists investigated this cycle
by a number of studies. A summary of the cycle is given by Chow et al (1988) or detail
description of some processes can be found in the book of Kirby (1978). The hydrologic cycle
may be treated as a system whose components are precipitation, evaporation, snowmelt,
infiltration, runoff and other processes in the hydrologic cycle. The different components can
each be grouped together into subsystem or broken down into new sub processes, depending on
the level of detail in the analysis and the purpose of the analysis.

Precipitation is the most essential process for the generation of runoff at a catchment scale. The
distribution of precipitation varies spatially and temporally by nature. Precipitation can be in the
form of snow, hail, dew, rain and rime. In this study precipitation is considered in the form of
rain only. Rainfall travels in a catchment in different directions. Due to vegetation, part of

12
rainfall is intercepted by vegetation canopy. Interception is known as a loss function to
catchment runoff depending on vegetation type, vegetation density. The rest of rainfall moves
down the vegetation as stem flow, drip off the leaves, or directly falls to the ground as through
fall. Rainfall remains at the land surface as depression storage and either evaporates, infiltrates or
is discharged as overland flow. By infiltration of rainwater, the water moves primarily in
downward direction by unsaturated subsurface flow and recharges the saturated zone. This
process is termed percolation or natural recharge and fills the aquifers of groundwater system. In
some cases at the shallow subsurface layer where the lateral hydraulic conductivity is higher than
the vertical one, the direct infiltration partly goes toward the channel through interflow or
through flow. The groundwater pattern is influenced by the catchment characteristics, especially
the topographic factors of the catchment, before being discharged to the channel network system.
Aquifers of the groundwater system also can discharge groundwater across the catchment
boundary.

2.6. Rainfall runoff modelling

The processes described in the previous part are not simple to qualify because most hydrologic
systems are extremely complex. Thus we may hope to find an abstraction of the processes
instead of understand them 12 in all detail. Rainfall – runoff modelling is a tool for this purpose.
In order to simulate the transformation from rainfall to runoff, rainfall – runoff models have been
developed already a long time ago and reference is made to the work of Todini (1988) for
historical review of rainfall–runoff modelling or Singh and Woolhiser (2002) for review on
catchment models. With respect to development over the past decade, Beven (2000, p.ix) wrote
“it is now virtually impossible for any one person to be aware of all the models that are reported
in the literature” and can be interpreted as that much efforts have been devoted to this issue.

Hydrologists have tried to classify rainfall–runoff models according to their specific approaches
as well as their characteristics(Singh, 1988.). Physically based (or theoretical, white box) models
are based on physical laws that include a set of conservation equations of mass, momentum,
energy and specific case entropy to describe the real world physics that governs nature. The first
two equations are most popularly applied in current models. Empirically based (black box)
models do not aid in physical understanding. However, they contain parameters that may have 13
physical characteristics that allow the modelling of input-output patterns based on empiricism.

13
Examples of this approach are unit hydrograph, rational method, etc. which are well described by
(Singh, 1988.).

In terms of spatial domains in catchment modelling, models can be classified as lumped,

distributed or semi-distributed ones. The lumped model ignores spatial distributed of the
catchment characteristics but there are represented by averaged single values. In contrast,
distributed model approaches capture the system by partitioning the catchment into a number of
smaller units. Semi-distributed model is something in between the first two that means the
catchment is partitioned but in a coarser unit as compared with distributed model.

2.7. Hydrologic data and goodness of Fit Test

The basic assumptions in statistical flood frequency analysis are the independence and stationary
of the data series. In addition, the assumption that the data come from the same distribution
(homogeneity) and the outlier is made.

An analysis of 20 extreme precipitation indices was calculated for a limited mountain area in
southern Vietnam. The statistical characteristics of maximum, minimum, mean, standard
deviation, skewness, and kurtosis for each index were analyzed and variety of distributions such
as Normal, Lognormal, Beta, Gamma, Exponential, Log logistic, and Johnson was used to find
the best fit probability distribution. The scores are estimated based on the ranking of statistical
goodness of fit test. The goodness of fit tests is the Anderson-Darling and Shapiro-Wilks tests.
Results revealed that the Johnson distribution was the best fit distribution to the data of very
heavy precipitation days greater than 50 mm. The lognormal, Johnson, and Log logistic
distribution are the best choices to fit most of the extreme precipitation indices over the area. The
eight probability distributions to estimate the peak flood discharge for Malakkara and
Neeleswaram were compered(Vivekanandan, 2014). He used Anderson-Darling and
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Goodness-of-Fit tests for checking the adequacy of fitting of the
distributions to the recorded annual maximum discharge. His study shows the Extreme Value
Type-1 (EV1) distribution is better suited for estimation of peak flood discharge for Malakkara
whereas Log-Pearson Type-3 (LP3) for Neeleswaram.

14
2.8. Flood frequency analysis and Probability distributions of hydrologic
variables
The flood frequency analysis is one of the important studies of river hydrology. It is essential to
interpret the past record of flood events in order to evaluate future possibilities of such
occurrences. The estimation of the frequencies of the flood is essential for the quantitative
assessment of the flood problem. The knowledge of the magnitude and probable frequency of
such recurrence is also required for proper design and location of hydraulic structures and for
other allied studies. After a detailed study of the gauge data and its descriptive parameters such
as mean and standard deviation, etc. and applying probability theory, one can reasonably predict
the probability of occurrence of any major flood events in terms of discharge or water level for a
specified return period (Ahn et al., 2014). However, for reliable estimates for extreme floods,
long data series is required; the use of historical data in the estimation of large flood events has
increased in recent years. Actually, there is no methodology available that can determine the
exact amount of flood. Various methods available are either based on probability or empirical.

Hydrologic systems are sometimes impacted by extreme events, such as severe storms, floods,
and droughts. In the hydrologic analysis, the annual peak discharge is considered to be a random
variable, probability and statistical methods are employed for analysis of random (Osti, 2004).
Methods based on Probability Theory are Normal, Lognormal, Pearson type III, Log Pearson
type III, Exponential, Gamma and Extreme value distributions. Sharma et al. (2003), studied
flood risk zoning of Khandoriver using these formulas. Various empirical approaches such as
Creager's formula, WECS/DHM Method, Modified Dicken's Method, B.D. Richard's Method,
Snyder’s Method, etc. are also used for determining discharge for a un-gauged basin. In the
WECS/DHM Method, the most significant independent variable is the area of the basin below
3000 meter elevations. In most of the flood analysis cases, the WECS/DHM Method seems to be
reasonable. An exhaustive knowledge of flood risk in different spatial locations is essential for
developing an effective flood mitigation strategy for a watershed. In the present study, a risk
vulnerability analysis to flood is performed. Four components of vulnerability to flood: 1)
physical, 2) economic, 3) infrastructure and 4) social; are evaluated individually using a
Geographic Information System (GIS) environment. The proposed methodology estimates the
impact on infrastructure vulnerability due to inundation of critical facilities, emergency service

15
stations and bridges. The components of vulnerability are combined to determine an overall
vulnerability to flood.

The exposures of land use/land cover and soil type (permeability) to flood are also considered to
include their effects on severity of flood. The values of probability of occurrence of flood,
vulnerability to flood, and exposures of land use and soil type to flood are used to finally
compute flood risk at different locations in a watershed. The proposed methodology is
implemented for six major damage centers in the Upper Thames River watershed, located in the
South Western Ontario, Canada to assess the flood risk. An information system is developed for
systematic presentation of the flood risk, probability of occurrence of flood, vulnerability to
flood, and exposures of land use and soil type to flood by postal code regions or Forward
Sortation Areas (FSAs). The flood information system is designed to provide support for
different users, i.e., general public, decision makers and water management professionals.

2.9. Tools and Models for Flood Analysis and Mapping

There are a number of commercial and non-commercial software tools available for numerical
modeling and analysis in GIS. Based on information on the lateral distribution of flow across a
cross section the models can be further divided into a one-dimensional and two-dimensional
model. Descriptions of some of the available software tools and models are presented below.

2.9.1. Digital Elevation Model (DEM)

Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) are a raster-geographic-digital-data-model developed by the
US Geological Survey (USGS) (Kessler, 1992). It is an ordered array of the elevation values of
an area sampled at regular horizontal intervals.

2.9.2. Geographical Information System (GIS)

Geographic Information System is a tool that can assist floodplain managers in identifying flood-
prone areas in their community(Ahmad et al., 2016). With GIS, geographical information is
stored in a database that can be queried and graphically displayed for analysis. By overlaying or
intersecting different geographical layers, flood-prone areas can be identified and targeted for
mitigation. The flood hazard maps coupled with the GIS technology and other information such
as the extent of the flood, the number of people involved could help to establish flood relief
operations for the particular river basin. The maps could include probabilities of depths of flood
inundation for risk assessment in a flood plain.

16
2.9.3. The HEC-HMS Model
HEC-HMS is comprised of a graphical user interface (GUI), integrated hydrologic analysis
components, data storage and management capabilities, and graphics and reporting facilities. The
Data Storage System, HEC-DSS, is used for storage and retrieval of time series, paired function,
and gridded data, in a manner largely transparent to the user. The GUI provides a means for
specification of watershed components, inputting data for the components, and viewing the
results. The GUI has capability for schematic representation of a network of hydrologic elements
(e.g. sub-basins, routing reaches, junctions, etc.). You can configure the schematic by selecting
and connecting icons that represent the elements.

2.9.4. HEC-RAS
HEC-RAS is a hydraulic model developed by Hydrologic Engineering Center of U.S Army
Corps. This model predominantly used in field hydraulic analysis for floodplain delineation. The
model is used for determination of water surface profile for different flow scenarios is intended
for steady and unsteady flow water surface profile computation. Also, perform sediment
transport and water quality simulation. The system is capable of modeling subcritical,
supercritical, critical and mixed flow regimes for streams consisting of the full network of
channel, a dendrite system or single river reach and describes the data required for HEC-RAS
(Horritt and Bates, 2002). Moreover the use of one-dimensional (1D) or two-dimensional (2D)
hydraulic models incorporated in geographic information systems (GIS) is preferred for risk
assessment. Some researchers have used 1D HEC-RAS models to represent flooding (Ahmad et
al., 2016); Kumar et al., 2017; Gharbi et al., 2016; Horritt& Bates, 2002; Hicks & Peacock,
2005; Ahmad et al., 2016; Nguyen et al., 2015; Lamichhane& Sharma, 2017; (A. Hamdan,
2016), while others have used 2D HEC-RAS models (Papaioannou et al., 2018). However, the
comparison of different one-dimensional and two-dimensional models were presented. At
present, one of the ways to study and understand the flood behavior is by generating the flood
extent or flood risk map (Hassan et al., 2009). Hydraulic modeling especially computer model is
required to carry out the flood simulation to produce flood level at various locations along the
river and flood plain. However, to analyse, a river system requires a tremendous amount of data
such as rainfall distribution, river properties and most important the flood plain topography. The
combination of GIS software and hydraulic software will be able to speed up the process of
producing a flood risk map which is suitable for a decision support system. GIS software is able
to handle the processing of such problem as an input to the hydraulic model. The output of the

17
hydraulic simulation can be transferred to GIS software to generate flood layer for various
scenarios. Further analysis such as flood damage assessment can be carried out for planning and
design purpose.

2.10. Flood Analysis and Flood Risk Assessment

An essential part of flood risk management is Flood risk assessment (Kubal et al., 2009). In
addition, Flood disaster mitigation strategies should be based on a comprehensive assessment of
the flood risk combined with a thorough investigation of the uncertainties associated with the
risk assessment procedure (Apel et al., 2004). Among the water-related hazards, flood hazards
have the most destructive impacts(Gilard, 2002). Several researchers have defined
methodologies for the flood risk assessment. (Gilard, 2002), presented an approach that divides
the flood risk into the factors of vulnerability and hazard. He described the vulnerability as the
sensitivity of land use to the flood phenomenon, which depends only on land use type and social
perception of the risk. The second factor, hazard, depends only on the flow regime of the river
and is independent of the land use of the flood plains. Consequently, the same flow will flood the
same area with the same physical parameters; whatever should be the real land use.

Flood analysis associated flood risk assessment should be applied using suitable and efficient
tools. The HEC-HMS model, HEC-RAS, and Arch-GIS, are the world-famous tools and has
been used by many researchers to simulate flood. Farther more flood risk assessment requires a
clear understanding of the causes of a potential disaster, which includes both the natural hazard
of a flood and the vulnerability of the elements at risk, which are people and their properties
(Ahmad et al., 2016).

Flood risk assessment, therefore, consists of understanding and quantifying this complex
phenomenon. Boyle et al., (1998) as cited in (Awal, 2003), discussed the assessment of the
expected damage due to the flood in terms of four primary steps. These include (1) hydrological
frequency analysis; (2) hazard assessment; (3) hazard exposure analysis; and (4) damage
assessment. In this methodology, the hydrological frequency analysis is based upon the historical
records and provides an estimate of exceedance probability or recurrence interval of the flood of
a particular magnitude. The hazard assessment includes the assessment of risks posed by a flood
event in terms of tangible and intangible damages. After identifying the potential hazards, the
next step in the assessment process includes the estimation of extent and severity of the damages

18
in terms of hazard exposure analysis, usually defined by floodwater depth and the velocity. The
damage assessment involves estimating the impact of the likely exposure in terms of the costs of
replacing and restoring the affected areas. The flood hazard and exposure assessment can be
undertaken as outlined in the (Awal, 2003)two approaches as cited in (Awal, 2003). In the first
approach, a simple binary model describes the hazard as either present or absent. The second
approach, spatial coexistence model is represented by a weighted model, which involves ranking
locations within the hazard area according to the severity of the hazard. The third approach is the
quantitative interval ratio model that assigns numbers to locations that quantify the unit hazard
factor.

Flood risk zoning in the Khando Khola in eastern Terai of Nepal by(Sharma et al., 2003).
Government of Nepal, DWIDP & Mountain Risk Engineering (MRE) Unit (2003), prepared
water induced hazard maps of part of Rupandehi district on the basis of field study and numerical
modeling. (Awal, 2003; Awal et al., 2005) study focus on analysis the floodplain and risk
assessment by integrated the hydraulic model with the Geographic Information System (GIS)
and presented a systematic approach of this application. This study produces the flood risk
assessment was made by combining the results of vulnerability and hazard assessments. Most of
the previous studies used a steady flow model however this study used both steady and unsteady
flow model for floodplain analysis. This study also assessed change in river course using satellite
image. Mapping and Assessing Hazard in the Ratu watershed (Manandhar, 2010)as done. The
study begins with the impact of flood disaster and resilience of the people at the national level
and then to watershed level at mesoscale and village development committee/municipality at the
micro level.

Hazard and risk mapping were done in the watershed level using GIS and RS and the numerical
model (HEC-RAS). Prepared Flood Hazard Map of BalkhuKhola using GIS and Remote
Sensing, found a huge area of barren land area affected by flood and few percentages of
settlement area indicating the damages to the human lives. The floodplains map of the Attarat
Um Al-Ghudran Oil Shale Concession area using ArcGIS and other Hydraulic models is done.
The analyzed data were incorporated into the various software programs to produce the desired
floodplains. It was found from their analysis, there are many land parcels that could potentially
be inundated by water in the event of large flows in the major river Wadi in the study area, made
hazard maps for the severely affected areas of Central Nepal, Preliminary hazard assessment for

19
the region was carried out by delineation of areas with rock and soil slopes. The hazard was
calculated with respect to different rating. Similarly, a hazard map of severely affected areas
from the high-intensity precipitation event in 1993 in Sarlahi district was prepare. Hazardous
sites in the Agra, Belkhu, and Malekhu Khola watersheds were mapped (DPTC and CDG, 1994).
were also studied on flood hazard assessment under climate change scenarios in the Yang river
basin. The study physically-based distributed hydrological model, Block-wise use of
TOPMODEL using Muskingum-Cunge flow routing (BTOPMC) and hydraulic model, HEC-
RAS was used to simulate the floods under future climate scenarios. The extreme runoff pattern
and synthetic inflow hydrographs for 25, 50 and 100 years return flood derived from an extreme
flood of 2007, which then fed into HEC-RAS model to generate the flood inundation maps in the
basin.

Flood plain analysis and risk assessment of Lothar Khola was done by(Manandhar, 2010). His
study presents a systematic approach in the preparation of hazard, vulnerability and risk maps
with the application of steady flow models and GIS. His study concludes that the automated
floodplain mapping and analysis using these tools provide more efficient, effective and
standardized results and save time and resources. The examination of the flood water depth
shows that most of the areas under flooding have water depth greater than 3.0m. Based on his
assessment, the area under cultivation that has flood hazard of more than 3.0 m is very high,
implying to a significant impact on agriculture due to the flooding and livelihood. An
information system is developed for systematic presentation of the flood risk, probability of
occurrence of flood, vulnerability to flood, and exposures of land use and soil type to flood by
postal code regions or Forward Sortation Areas.(Khalil, 2018), proposes an approach utilizes
remote sensing (RS) and geographic information system (GIS) to prepare flood risk code map for
Jeddah city, Saudi Arabia. His results shows that a precipitation of 106.3 mm was generate 136.5
million m3 of flood water and The results according to the developed flood risk code show that
due to this amount of precipitation, about 1 million people live in Jeddah were prone to extreme
flood risk and about 2 million of population were at major risk, the rest of population (about 0.5
million) were vulnerable to moderate to minor fold risk.

20
3. MATERIAL AND METHOD
3.1. Study Area Description
In central Ethiopia the Great Rift Valley splits the Ethiopian highlands into northern and
southern halves, and the study area is situated at the southern part of the great Ethiopian rift
valley 120 km from Hawassa and 330 km from the capital Addis Ababa on the way to
Arbaminch, south OMO. Bilate is a river of south-central Ethiopia. It rises on the southwestern
slopes of Gurage Mountain near 6°38′18’’N to 8°6′57’’N, flowing south along the western side
of the Great Rift Valley flows into Lake Abaya. Basin size 5,588.6 km2, Length~250 km
(160 mi) The basin found between 6°38′18’’N to 8°6′57’’Northlatitude and 37° 47’ 6’’ to 38°
20’ 14’’ East of longitude.

Figure 3. 1Study Area Location

21
3.1.1 Climate
The Ethiopian National Meteorological Services Agency (NMSA) defines three seasons in
Ethiopia: this three main seasons characterize the study area: the first one is the long rainy season
in summer, which lasts from June to September and locally known as ‘Kiremt’. The second
season is the dry season which lasts from October to February locally named as ‘Bega’ and the
last season is ‘Belg’ with the ‘small rain’ which lasts from March to May.

According to the statistical climatic data analysis during the period (1991-2020), the climate of
the study area can be categorized as semi-arid to sub-humid type with a mean annual rainfall of
914.1 mm with an average annual evaporation of 579.9 mm. The mean annual minimum and
maximum temperature is 14.11°C and 31.04°C respectively. The annual average relative
humidity in the area is 59.68%, while the annual average sunshine duration is 6.45 hours per day.

3.1.2 Hydrology
The watershed is composed of short tributaries merges into one main river flowing into the Lake
Abaya, The River in the watershed generates high runoff during high period of rainfall, June
through October and decreases the flows during the dry seasons.

SWAT Hydrological Processes

Sub-basin Outlet
River
Weather
Flow
crop growth
flow SENSITIVITY
Precipitation
O2 ANALYSIS
evaporation
sediments
Temperature NH4
infiltration
transport HNO3 MULTI-
Solar radiation
OBJECTIVE
percolation Org. N AUTO-
Humidity water quality
CALIBRATION
H2PO4
groundwater processes
Wind speed
Org. P

PET nutrients •QUAL2E

sediments

sediment •RWQM Algae

C/BOD

...

Figure 3. 2SWAT Hydrology process

22
3.1.3 Soil data
Hydraulic conductivity analysis, existing in the soil map has been obtained mainly from Ministry
of Water Resources Ethiopia (MoRE) or Ethiopian Soil map. The soil map of the Bilate river
study basin as required by the SWAT model may also be obtained from the group that studies the
soils of the Bilate River Basin. The soil type in the area is dominated by Andosols 30.91%,
Vertisols 28.11%, Fluvisols 11.07%, and other type’s accounts 20.81%.

Figure 3. 3 Soil data map

3.1.4 Land use Data

SWAT has predefined land uses identified by four letter codes and it uses these codes to link
land use maps to SWAT land use databases in the GIS interface. Hence, while preparing the
lookup table, the land use types has been made compatible with the input needs of the model.
Satellite images which are used for land use and land cover classification analysis datasets had

23
been collected from Mapping Agency of Ethiopia (MAE) for the Year 2016 sentlinel2 land use/
land cover map.

Hence the classified land use map and its attribute had been adjusted to the SWAT model
requirement format and database. The land use/land cover map are required by the SWAT model
may also be obtained from the group that deals with “Land suitability” of the basin.

The Land use of the study area can be categorized mainly as agricultural/cultivated, pasture,
Range grass, bare land and water. According to the information collected during the field visit
around the study area, irrigation is increasingly practiced and now it becomes common along the
courses of the Bilate River. Based on the food and agriculture organization (FAO) classification
system, in this study the analysis classified the land use/land cover. The dominant land cover in
the study area is open woodland and agriculture. This classification system verified that
agriculture 78.78%, pasture 11.51% and range grass 6.69%. The remaining land cover accounts
for less than 5%.

Figure 3. 4 Land Use/land cover Map (Ethiopian_sentinel2_LULC2016)

24
3.2Material Used
The materials used for the study include, but not limited to:

 Arc-GIS to obtain hydrological and physical parameters and spatial information plus to
delineate the catchments of the study area.
 Arc SWAT and HEC-RAS software to develop inundation of flood risk map.
 20m DEM data is used as an input data for Arc SWAT and GIS software for catchment
delineation and estimation of catchment characteristic and HRU analysis.
 30m DEM Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) (Jarvis et al., 2008) for HEC-
RAS 2D unsteady flow.
 Hydrological and meteorological data
 Land cover, and
 Soil layers.

3.3 Data Collection

3.3.1 Meteorological Data
Daily rainfall records from 1st January 1991 to 31st December 2020 of three rainfall gauging
stations lying in and around Bilate River basin were taken from the Ethiopian Meteorology
Agency is used for this study.

3.3.2 Hydrological Data

Hydrological data are very much important in the simulation and setup run process of the model.
Daily discharge recorded data of fourteen years of Bilate River at
BilateTenaandBilateHalabagauging station for model analysis was collected from Ministry of
Water Resource for the study.

Table 3. 1 Hydrological data

Station Name Station Coverage Area Km2 Data Type Data Length Remark

BilateTena 5518.0 Stream flow 1998- 2015 For Modeling

Billate Nr. 1980.0 Stream flow 1998- 2015 For Modeling

HalabaKulito

25
3.3.3 Topographic Data
Digital Elevation Model (DEM) data of the river basin is a major requirement to apply Arc
SWAT and HEC-RAS model to develop the basin model. DEM data can be obtained from on-
line sources and also can be developed using digital contour maps. However, developing a DEM
using contour maps is an expensive procedure since it needs fine contour maps in the scale of at
least 1: 10,000. For this study the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) DEM (Jarvis et
al., 2008) data with 30m grid resolution, which is found from Ministry of water resource, GIS-
Department is used. The steps consist of computations starting from extracting, filling sinks,
finding flow direction, flow accumulation, stream definition, watershed delineation, watershed
polygon processing and stream processing.

3.4 Methodology
The methodology employed includes modeling, field observation, consulting advisory literature
and formal and informal communication with respective organizations, stakeholders'. In the
following sections, description of the general methodology applied including field visit and data
collection, the description including model run and simulation of the candidate models are
presented in detail.

The overall research methodology approach along with the required data and the selected models
approach are presented below.

3.4.1 Research Framework

The general description framework of preparation of flood inundation and risk maps is presented
in Figure. 3.5.

26
 Data collection

Hydrological Meteorological Topographical Land use,

dDdatadaata
Data (DEM) Soil and Slop

Data Preparation and HRU

Analysis

Rainfall-Runoff Modeling
Simulation
Using Arc SWAT

Sensitivity Analysis
Run

Model Outputs

Flood Inundation Mapping

HEC-RAS Model Flood Hazard mapping
Flood Risk Mapping

Figure 3. 5 Schematic Representation of the Study

3.4.2 Data Analysis

Hydrological modeling to a large extent depends on the Reliability of the collected raw data of
Hydrological and Meteorological. This data significantly affects quality of the model input and,
consequently, the model simulation. Therefore, here in this sub topic sequentially presents, rough
data screening of raw meteorological and hydrological data, estimation of a corrected rainfall and
temperature for the study area (catchment and sub catchments), and analysis done to check

27
consistency and homogeneity of the corrected data sets. Stream flow/discharge data a large
extent for model simulation and run used.

3.4.3 SWAT Analysis

SWAT stands for Soil and Water Assessment Tool, it is a river basin scale developed to predict
the impact of land management practices on water, sediment and agricultural chemical yields.
Data Organization were done in a sub-basins or hydrologic response units (HRU’s), HRU’s are
portions of a sub-basin that possess unique land use/management/soil attributes in time scale and
a continuous time model yields a long term model based on a daily scale not for a single event. It
is a public domain model actively supported by the USDA/Agricultural Research Service at the
Grassland, Soil and Water Research Laboratory in Temple, Texas, USA. The SWAT system
(ArcSWAT), embedded within geographic information system (GIS)can integrate various spatial
environmental data, including soil, land cover, climate, and topographic features. It is
computationally efficient (Simulation of very large basins). SWAT enables to study long-term
impacts.

Figure 3. 6 SWAT model output interface

28
3.4.3.1 Processing and evaluation of collected data
SWAT uses solar radiation values rather than daily sunshine hour’s data, and thus, it has been
converted using appropriate methods. Statistical analysis of the daily data had been summarized
as mean daily maximum air temperature for month (ºC), mean daily minimum air temperature
for month (ºC), standard deviation for daily maximum air temperature in month (ºC), standard
deviation for daily minimum air temperature in month (ºC), average or mean total monthly
precipitation (mm H2O), standard deviation for daily precipitation in month (mm H2O/day),
skewness coefficient for daily precipitation in month, probability of a wet day following a dry
day in the month, probability of a wet day following a wet day in the month, average number of
days of precipitation in month, average daily solar radiation for month (MJ/m2/day), average
daily dew point temperature in month (ºC), average daily wind speed in month (m/s) had be
estimated using pcpSTAT, which is used as an input for the weather generator. Finally, all the
data had been prepared in .dbf format as an input into the SWAT model. Continuity test checked
and the missing data had been filled with a missing data identifier of -99.
To detect possible errors checking the station for data quality using appropriate method is
essential. Therefore, inspection of consistency of individual stations, the data qualities with
regard to possible temporal variations or errors had been carried out by Double- Mass Curve.

3.4.3.2 Weather generator data preparation

SWAT requires daily values of precipitation, maximum and minimum temperature, solar
radiation, relative humidity and wind speed. Up on checking the climatic data collected from all
meteorological stations considered for the study, the data may have missing data. As SWAT has
a built in weather generator called WGEN that is used to fill the gaps, all the missing values had
been filled with a missing data identifier -99, and the weather generator first independently
generates precipitation data for each day.
In SWAT, surface runoff amounts can be estimated using either the SCS Curve Number method
or the Green &Ampt infiltration method. In this study, the SCS Curve Number method had been
adopted. It is an empirical model that estimates the amounts of runoff under varying land use and
soil types and given as:
2
(Rday −Ia )
Qsurf = (R (1)
day –Ia + S)

Where: Qsurf is accumulated runoff or rainfall excess (mm water),

29
Rday is rainfall depth for the day (mm water),

Ia is an initial abstraction which includes surface storage, interception and infiltration prior to
runoff (mm water),

S is a retention parameter (mm water) which varies spatially due to changes in soils,
land use, management and slope and temporally due to changes in soil water content. S can be
expressed as:

1000
S = 25.4 ( − 10) (2)
CN

Where, CN is the curve number for the day.

CN is a function of land use practice, soil permeability, and soil hydrologic group. For the
definition of the soil hydrologic groups, the model uses the U.S. Natural Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS) classification, which classifies soils into four hydrologic groups (A, B, C, & D)
based on infiltration characteristics of the soils. Group A, B, C and D soils have high, moderate,
slow, and very low infiltration rates with low, moderate, high, and very high runoff potential,
respectively.
The initial abstraction, Ia, is commonly approximated as 0.2S and the equation becomes:
2
(Rday −0.2S )
Qsurf = (3)
(Rday +0.8S)

Runoff will only occur when Rday>Ia

The CNs for different land use and land cover, soil groups and antecedent moisture conditions
are provided with SWAT2012 manual that takes in account of soil infiltration rate when
thoroughly wetted, and slope adjustments.

3.4.3.3 Evapotranspiration (ET)

Evapotranspiration is a collective term that includes all processes by which water at the Earth’s
surface is converted to water vapor.

3.4.3.4 Groundwater
SWAT assumes two layers of aquifers while simulating the groundwater balance; namely a
shallow-unconfined aquifer, and a deep-confined aquifer. The unconfined shallow aquifer
contributes to flow in the main channel or reach of the sub basin, whereas the deep confined

30
aquifer assumed to contribute to stream flows outside the watershed (Arnold et al. 1995). The
volume of water available in the shallow aquifer is governed by the recharge from the top soil
profile (recharge), the flow into the main stream channels or reach (base flow), the movement
into the overlying unsaturated zone (revap), and the flow to the deep aquifer (deep percolation)
(Neitsch et al., 2011). Evaporation, pumping withdrawals, seepage to the deep aquifer, and water
uptake from the shallow aquifer by deep rooted plants is also components of the groundwater.
The water balance for a shallow aquifer in SWAT is calculated as:

Aqsh, i= Aqsh,i-1+ wrchrg-Qgw - wrevap- wdeep- wpump,sh (4)

Where:
Aqsh, i= the amount of water stored in the shallow aquifer on day i (mm),
Aqsh,i-1 = the amount of water stored in the shallow aquifer on day i-1 (mm),
wrchrg-Qgw = the amount of recharge entering the aquifer on day i (mm),
Qgw = the groundwater flow, base flow, into the main channel on day i (mm),
wrevap = the amount of water moving into the soil zone in response to water deficiencies on
day i (mm),
wdeep= the amount of water percolating from the shallow aquifer into the deep aquifer on day
i (mm),
wpump,sh= the amount of water removed from the shallow aquifer by pumping on day i (mm).
Base flow occurs only when the amount of water stored in the shallow aquifer exceeds a
threshold volume of water. Similarly, deep percolation happens only when the amount of water
stored in the shallow aquifer exceeds a threshold value.

3.5. Flood Frequency Analysis

Sequential steps used to estimate the floods of given recurrence intervals involved selecting the
highest peak flood in a hydrological year. The highest peaks in each hydrological year are
arranged in descending order of magnitudes and ranks are then assigned. Within a single data
series, some discharge values occurred more than once and are given the same rank,two
frequency distributions including the Gumbel’s or Extreme Value type 1 distribution (EV1) and
the Log-Pearson type III distribution (LP3) were compared for flood estimation.

31
Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Bilate Tena 14.68 14.48 10.09 10.41 7.15 6.81 10.07 12.16 13.84 14.67 13.36 4.69 9.44 8.84 10.11 14.56 7.28
Bilate Halaba 14.08 7.49 9.64 11.55 4.74 5.21 15.39 33.65 41.17 40.74 27.58 46.61 36.25 37.31 42.21 45.44 4.55
Table 3. 2 Mean Monthly Discharge of BilateTena and Halaba Station

Average Discharge m3/s

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Bilate Tena Bilate Halaba

Figure 3. 7 Average flow comparison Bilate Tena and Halaba Station

3.5.1. The Gumbel’s Method

The Gumbel’s method (Gumbel Distribution) is the most widely used probability distribution
function for extreme values in hydrologic and meteorological studies for prediction of flood
peaks and maximum rainfall (Water Resources Council, 1981). In this method, the variate X
(maximum rainfall or flood peak discharge) with a recurrence interval T is given by

XT = Xavg + KSn−1(3.1)
Where: XT = maximum rainfall or flood peak discharge
Xavg = average value of X
√∑(X−Xavg)
Sn-1 = Standard deviation of sample size N = (3.2)
2𝑁−1
Yt−𝑌𝑛
K = frequency factor expressed as 𝐾 = (3.3)
𝑆𝑛

32
 T
Yt = reduced variant, a function of T and is given by YT = 𝐾 = ln. ln 𝑇−1(3.4)

Yn = reduced mean, a function of sample size N

Sn = reduced standard deviation, a function of sample size N.
3.5.2. The Log Pearson Type III Method
In the Log Pearson Type III Method, the variate is first transformed into logarithmic form (base
10) and the transformed data is then analyzed (Subramanya, 1994). If X is the variate of a
random hydrologic or meteorological series, then the series of Z variate where 𝑧 = log 𝑋 are first
obtained for this z series, for any recurrence interval T.
ZT = Zavg + Kzsz(3.5)
Where Zavg = arithmetic mean of Z values
Kz is a frequency factor which is a function of recurrence interval T and the coefficient of skew
Cs, For N = number of sample, n = number of years of record.

√∑(Z−Zavg)
Sz = Standard deviation of Z variate sample == (3.6)
2𝑁−1
∑(Z−Zavg) 2
Cs = coefficient of skew of the variate Z = (N−1)(N−2)(σs) 3 (3.7)

Corresponding value of X = antilog (ZT) (3.8)

3.6 Theoretical Basis for Two-Dimensional Unsteady Flow Calculations (HEC-

RAS) Hydraulic modeling
HEC-RAS is currently capable of performing 2D water surface profile calculations for unsteady
gradually varied flow in natural channels. Subcritical, supercritical, and mixed and flow regime
water surface profiles can be calculated. The flows are prescribed by the user and the model
calculates water levels at discrete cross-sections and there is essentially one unknown variable
(stage). The system can handle a single river reach, a dendritic system, or a full network of
channels. The basic computational procedure is based on the solution of the Two-dimensional
unsteady flow equation.

3.7HEC RAS application

HECRAS version 5.01 and later includes functionality to analyses water flows moving across a
surface. This is known as 2D flood modelling and provides more accurate modelling of water
movement across a surface than 1d (or section based) flood modelling. If you are using to work
with HECRAS multiple input files via the Export HECRAS 2D and Import HECRAS 2D

33
commands. For instance, we’ll use HECRAS to undertake a 2D flow analysis of an existing
Bilate River and existing tributaries being considered for expansion. The existing Bilate river
flow performance is to be maintained following the new works, and enhancement of the
tributaries, where flow may be required if flooding is occurring downstream.
The objective of the hydraulic modeling process was to convert the flow values calculated into
water surface elevations along the stream reach. Before doing Two Dimensional Flow Area (2D
Flow Areas) in HEC-RAS a new project was started and saved under a user-given name as
shown in figure 3.8.

Figure 3. 8 The main HEC-RAS window with the title and file name

3.7.1 Assigning a Projection

Before creating a terrain, a projection must be set. This is controlled by a projection file,
extension .prj. Some typical Australian and other country specific .prj files are contained in the
Visualizations and then Projections folders. There is also a website where you can generate .prj
files by typing in your location.
Once the main HEC-RAS window was opened SI (metric) units selected and RAS MAPPER was
opened from the option chosen from the GIS tool window set spatial reference projection
downloaded in the ESRI projection File(“prj”) format as shown in Figure 3.9.

34
Figure 3. 9 The RAS MAPPER window with spatial reference projection
From the RAS MAPPER terrain DEM data and image are loaded/created into the spatial
reference system set in the prj format down loaded and save in the main HEC RAS window as
shown below in figure 3.9.

Figure 3. 10 HEC-RAS terrain Window

3.7.2 Creating the 2D Flow Area

In the geometry data editor processed may not appropriate with the actual data, so that it is
necessary to edit them in HEC-RAS software. The geometry file for HEC-RAS contains
information on cross-sections of the river, hydraulic structures, river banks, 2D flow area, SA/2D

35
flow area con. and other physical attributes of river channels. The preprocessing using HEC-
RAS involves creating these multiple inlet 2D flow area polygon in the geometry file. In HEC-
RAS, each attribute is stored in a separate feature class called as RAS Layer. HEC-RAS creates a
geo data base in the same folder where the map document is saved, gives the name of the map
document to the geo data base (floodplain.mdb), and stores all the feature classes or RAS layers
in this geo data base. After creating RAS layers, these are added to the map document with a pre-
assigned. Since these layers are empty, the task is to populate these layers depending on the
project needs and then create a HECRAS geometry file.
Now to create a two dimensional flow areas (2D flow area) for analysis, to keep it simple, select
the extents of the terrain as the boundary. This is a relatively well defined basin, so the extents of
the boundary are typically much higher than the main river (excepting the multiple inflow/inlet
locations east, west, north and south). When you select the area you can establish a calculation
mesh across the surface. 120m mesh is suitable and matches with the existing surface
triangulation. In the 2D Flow Areas form apply a computational mesh across the surface. Run the
boundary just outside the 2D Flow Area along the west, north and eastern boundary where the
properties are and name the flow area boundary Lower BC lines. The outputs should look similar
to below.

Figure 3. 11 Bilate 2D flow area

36
3.7.3 Setting Boundary Conditions
Flow comes from the ponding areas along the southern boundary of the surface, so a boundary
condition needs to be set along this edge. We can then assign multiple inflow Main_ Bilate,
Tributary 1, Tributary 2, Tributary 3 and Lower BC lines along this boundary to spill across the
surface. The lower side of the surface is along the southern boundary, so we can set a boundary
condition along there for how water can exit along that boundary.

Figure 3. 12 Boundary condition

Note that in the geometry editor you can incorporate both 1D and 2D flow zones into a single
model for analysis. Additionally, boundary conditions can be set within the 2D area to represent
different hydraulic behaviors. After setting up the surface and boundary conditions, you can
move onto assigning the flow conditions.

37
3.7.4 Establish Flow Conditions along the Boundaries
In the Flow Conditions form, we can set an inflow for the Inflow incoming boundary along the
southern boundary. In this research study, unsteady flow data such as flow regime including a
peak flow and describing the 2D flow area shape as a simple irregular type curve. You can copy
and paste from spreadsheet input tools, such as Excel, to quickly create the multiple inlet flow
information for HEC-RAS. For the outgoing boundary conditions, we set for a normal depth and
apply a friction slope to describe how the exiting flow is handled.

Figure 3. 13 Fow condition along the boundary

Boundary conditions were important inputs in the hydraulic model for establishing a starting
water surface elevation and influence of external system to the model domain through a
connecting node. There are different boundary condition types i.e., Known water surface, stage
and flow hydrograph, Normal depth, and rating curve, etc. The type selected depends largely
upon the available data. Since no observed flow data (Known Water Surface) is available, it was
very important to choose appropriate unsteady flow boundary conditions. Usually, if there is no

38
observed data, the normal depth is used (USACE, 2016). If the mixed flow regime calculation is
going to be made, then Boundary condition must be entering at all ends of the river system.
Therefore, the mixed flow regime was selected because it starts flow calculation from upstream
and downstream ends of the river system (Figure 3.12).

Flow data and Boundary conditions for HEC-RAS can solve for both steady flow and unsteady
flow. Unsteady flow solutions are selected in analysis for flood plain modeling and compare
different flood control alternatives. In order to perform unsteady water surface calculation,
unsteady flow data such as flow regime, boundary conditions, and peak discharge were entered.

3.7 Sensitivity analysis

Sensitivity analysis is the process of identifying model parameters that exert the highest
influence on the model’s performance. Model sensitivity is defined as the change in a model’s
output per change in a parameter of an input. Sensitivity analysis describes how a model output
varies over a range of a given input variable. Lenhart et al. (2002) reviewed more than a dozen
sensitivity analysis techniques.

When SWAT simulation is being carried out, there will be discrepancy between measured data
and simulated results. So, to minimize this discrepancy, it is necessary to determine the
parameters which are affecting the results and the extent of variation. Hence, to check this,
sensitivity analysis is carried out as one tool to show the rank and the mean relative sensitivity of
parameters. Model sensitivity classes as given by Lenhart et al. (2002) are presented iHRUn the
Table below.

Class Index Sensitivity

I 0.0≤ MRS<0.05 Small to Negligible
II 0.05 ≤ MRS <0.2 Medium
III 0.2 ≤ MRS < 1 High
IV MRS > 1 Very high
Table 3. 3 Sensitivity class for SWAT model (Source: (Lenhart et al, 2002))

39
3.7.1 Model calibration

Model calibration is a means of adjusting or fine-tuning model parameters to match with the
observed data as much as possible, with limited (acceptable) range of deviation. A typical
approach is to first select an initial estimate of the parameters, somewhere inside the ranges
previously specified. The parameter values are then adjusted to more closely match the model
behavior to that of the watershed. The process of adjustment can be done manually or using
computer-based automatic methods. The manual method is the most common, and especially
recommended for the application of more complicated models.

In this study, calibration of SWAT was carried out by taking into consideration stream flow data.
After each calibration, checking R2 and CE values and calibrate again at least until the minimum
recommended values of performance indicators are achieved, as given in the Model Performance
Evaluation Criteria section.

3.7.2 Model validation

Validation is a comparison of the model outputs with an independent dataset without further
adjustments of the values of the parameters. In order to utilize any predictive watershed model
for estimating the effectiveness of future potential management practices the model must be first
calibrated to measured data and should then be tested (without further parameter adjustment)
against an independent set of measured data.

The model predictive capability is demonstrated as being reasonable in the calibration and
validation phase, model can be used with some confidence for future predictions under
somewhat different management scenarios. The statistical criteria (the R2 and NSE) used during
the calibration procedure were also checked here to make sure that the simulated values is still
within the accuracy limits. R²> 0.6, NSE > 0.5 (Santhi et al., 2001).

40
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1Results of Arc SWAT Model
4.1.1 Hydraulic Response Units/HRUs/ Analysis
4.1.1.1 Land use/land cover, soil and slope definition
The Arc SWAT model uses land use/land cover, soil and slope map input in order to get the
hydraulic response units/HRUs/ analysis. Based on the model result showed that watershed are
classified as 5 sub-basin categories cover a total area of 5054.4 square kilometer. Land use/land
cover classification result table shows 3981.7 sq.km cultivated and 919.4 sq.km grazing/range
grass land area are dominantly occur, but the remaining 153.1 sq.km area are least covered. More
than 75 percent Soils classification covers andosols, vertisols and fluvisols. More than 73
percent slope classes are gentle slope. The detail sub-basin classification attached in (Annex B1).

Table 4. 1 Land use/land cover, soil and slope

41
4.1.1.2 HRUs Definition
HRU Distribution is generated using the HRU definition process Table 4.2. This report provides
a detailed description of the distribution of the land use, soil, and slope classes after application
of thresholds for the watershed and all the sub-watersheds. 5 sub-watershed and 94 number of
HRUs with the land use/soil/slope classes are produced attached in (Annex B2).

Table 4. 2 HRU definition

42
Figure 4. 1Arc SWAT produced Soil and Land use map

4.1.1.3 SWAT simulation

Simulation was done for the initial and final day of simulation are set to the first and last days of
measured weather data. The simulation time is 1/1/1991 and 12/31/2020 done for 30 years period
in all the three weather station data.

43
Figure 4. 2 Schematic representation of hydrologic cycle (Water balance) components flow
simulation

4.1.1.4Recharge Estimation by Water Budget method

The water balance method for estimation of storage in the sub-basin usually uses the formula
shown below. In this equation 4.1 below the change in storage assumed to be the water stored
below the surface in the ground water system. The input for the balance are mean monthly
rainfall, mean monthy flow and areal evapotranspiration of the studied sub-basins.

Mass Inflow – Mass Outflow = Change in mass storage

ΔS-P-Q=Et(4.1)

Where, ΔS; Monthly change in storage in Mm3;

P; Monthly precipitation Mm3;

Q; Monthly outflow as runoff Mm3;

44
Et; Monthly actual evapotranspiration Mm3; mean monthly rainfall values used for water balance
calculation of the sub-basins are given on by running SWAT model.

Land Use Summary

LULC AREA km2 CN AWC mm PREC mm SURQ mm GWQ mm ET mm

AGRL 4,194.66 86.37 50.96 914.12 191.15 124.16 565.64

FRST 21.50 76.39 92.99 914.12 89.32 183.92 605.88

PAST 565.93 83.02 53.84 914.12 134.32 136.33 609.72

RNGE 272.10 84.00 50.22 914.12 165.32 127.34 587.59

Figure 4. 3 SWAT land use summary
4.1.1.5 Demand and water balance
The overall simulation showed that the total sub basin load of Bilate Biver are 73.03 m3/s which
is simulated for 30 years period weather data. The water balance of Bilate Biver catchment are
obtained from the Arc SWAT simulation result as shown below.

MON RAIN (MM) SURF Q (MM) LAT Q(MM) WATER YIELD(MM) ET (MM) PET (MM)
1 72.41 17.02 0.48 29.96 40.7 112.65
2 64.6 16.01 0.43 26.96 38.95 104.18
3 78.83 16.76 0.48 27.68 53.06 115.39
4 83.43 12.31 0.49 22.41 65.06 108.65
5 102.73 18.51 0.56 28.41 70.39 110.71
6 73.81 9.06 0.54 18.72 58.72 107.54
7 76.34 12.62 0.51 21 48.37 106.58
8 64.04 10.89 0.49 19.84 36.03 110.02
9 68.44 15.88 0.48 26.35 35.08 109.21
10 93.32 22.9 0.51 35.12 44.46 110.7
11 72.98 17.25 0.53 31.84 41.34 109.73
12 62.67 13.65 0.5 28.07 39.46 110.96
Table 4. 3 Monthly River basin value

4.2. Sensitivity analysis

In this study, 20 parameters were considered during the sensitivity analyses, which was carried
out to determine the degree of effect that a parameter has on the output and, thus reducing the
number of parameters to advance to the model calibration phase. Accordingly, among the 20
hydrological parameters selected for sensitivity analysis considering the sub-basin created by

45
taking BilateTena Station as an outlet, 7 parameters were selected as relatively sensitive based on
t-stat and p-value (Table 4.5).

Parameter Name t-Stat P-Value

3:V_GW_DELAY.gw 0.113687 0.911365
5:R_SOL_Z(..).sol -0.450028 0.660711
2:V_ALPJA_BF.gw 0.676126 0.511781
6:R_HRU_SLP.hru -0.695456 0.500016
4:V_GWQMN_gw -0.790118 0.444792
7:_GW_REVAP.gw -1.063457 0.30895
1:R_CR2.mgt -1.424109 0.179895

Table 4. 4 Calibrated flow parameters, their rank and fitted value.Note: (V tells the replacement
of the parameter with the fitted value.R tells the multiplication of the parameter by (1 + a given
value)).
4.2.1. Model calibration and validation

SWAT model calibration is done by adjusting model parameters to match observed and
simulated flow data as much as possible, with a limited range of acceptable deviation. A typical
approach is to first select an initial estimate for the parameters, somewhere inside ranges
previously specified. The values of the parameters are then adjusted to more closely fit the model
behavior to that of the watershed. The calibrated flow parameters, their rank and fitted values are
presented in Table 4.2.
Parameter_Name Fitted_Value Min_value Max_value
1:R__CN2.mgt 39.724998 35 98
2:V__ALPHA_BF.gw 0.125 0 1
3:V__GW_DELAY.gw 387.5 0 500
4:V__GWQMN.gw 3625 0 5000
5:R__SOL_Z(..).sol 437.5 0 3500
6:R__HRU_SLP.hru 0.475 0 1
7:R__GW_REVAP.gw 0.1415 0 0.2
Table 4. 5 Calibrated flow parameters, their rank and fitted value.Note: V tells the replacement of
the parameter with the fitted value.R tells the multiplication of the parameter by (1 + a given
value).

After every calibration, checking R2 and NSE values and repeating the calibration process was
carried out until at least the minimum recommended values of the performance indicators were
obtained (R²> 0.6, NSE > 0.5 and PBIAS < ± 25% (Santhi et al., 2001)). For calibration and
validation, SWAT-CUP 2012 was selected (Sequential Uncertainty Fitting (SUFI-2) algorithm)

46
following the SWAT-CUP user manual (Abbaspour, 2013). A semi-automated calibration and
uncertainty analysis (SUFI-2) accounts for any nature of uncertainty, included in the driving
variables (e.g. weather variables), conceptual model, parameters and observed data (Tang et al.,
2012).

Stream flow data of a total of 17 years (1998-2014) were used for the calibration and validation
purposes in the study. The first three year of the modelling period was used as the warm-up
period, and the data of January 1998 - December 2014 were used for model calibration. At the
end of the calibration process, the R2, NSE and PBIAS were found to be 0.94, 0.93, and -0.8,
respectively. The results of the performance indicators show that SWAT has the ability to
simulate the stream flow to an acceptable level, based on the performance classification given by
Donigan and Love (2003). In addition, the data of January 2009 - December 2014 were used for
validating the calibrated model. During the validation period the R2, NSE and PBIAS has also
resulted to be 0.94, 0.93, and -0.8 respectively. Here again, the results of the performance
indicators show that SWAT has the ability to simulate the stream flow to an acceptable level
(Donigan and Love, 2003). The simulated and observed values of flow during the validation
phase were plotted and the result shows that there is a good agreement between the observed and
simulated monthly flows (Figure 4.4 and Figure 4.5).

47
Figure 4. 4 Average monthly observed and simulated flow hydrograph during the calibration
(1998-2014) phase at Bilate Tena Station.

Figure 4. 5 Average monthly observed and simulated flow hydrograph during the validation
phase at Bilate Tena Station.

48
4.3 Unsteady Flow and Flood risk Analysis
The Bilate river (Bilate Halaba and its tributary, Bilate Tena station) river was found in the study
area floodplain. The Bilate Halaba River was assigned as upper reach, starting from the upper
floodplain to the junction and lower reach, starting from the junction to the outlet.

Figure 4. 6 Unsteady flow simulation

Unsteady Flow used for Bilate Halaba river station(upper reach ) were 209.71, 257.35, 292.68,
327.76, and 362.71 m3 /s and for Bilate Tena River station(Tributary) were 217.16, 275.25,
318.35, 361.13 and 403.76 m3 /s, was found to be lower reach of Bilate River. This analyze
performed in HEC-RAS used discharge showed that the discharge used for lower reach was
larger than that of upper reach discharges at 10, 25, 50, 100 and 200 years return period (Figure
4.6)

49
The result of 10,25, 50, 100 and 200-years Return Period Flood Frequency Analysis based on
daily Maximum flow recorded at Bilate Halaba and Tena Station from year 1998 - 2014 using
Gumbel’s and Log Pearson Type III method are summarized below in Table 4-7 and table 4.8.
Return Period T Flood Discharge Q(m3/s)
(Yrs) Bilate Tena Bilate Halaba
209.71
10 217.16
275.25 257.35
25
318.35 292.68
50
361.13 327.76
100
403.76 362.71
200
Table 4. 6 Flood Frequency by the Gumbel’s Method

Return Period T Flood Discharge Q(m3/s)

(Yrs) Bilate Tena Bilate Halaba
207.45
10 213.95
273.88 249.34
25
317.49 278.35
50
359.85 305.56
100
400.75 331.07
200
Table 4. 7 Return period by Log Pearson Type III Method
It is observed that flood frequency analysis by Gumbel’s showed discharges of BilateTena (217.16,
275.25, 318.35, 361.13 and 403.76 m3/sec) and Bilate Halaba (209.71, 257.35, 292.68, 327.76 and
362.71 m3/s) and Log Person Type III method showed discharge of Bilate Tena (213.95, 273.95, 317.49,
359.85 and 400.75 m3/sec) and Bilate Halaba (207.45, 249.34, 278.35, 305.56 and 331.07 m3/s) for 10-
years, 25-years, 50-years, 100-years and 200- years return periods respectively. Flood risk mapping and
Vulnerability Analysis Gumbel’s were slightly higher as compared to the results obtained by Log Pearson
Type III method. Result obtained Gumbel’s method is selected/used in the model for unsteady flow
simulation.

50
 Return period by Gumbel's method
500.00
400.00
300.00
200.00
100.00
0.00
0 50 100 150 200 250

Flood Discharge Q Flood Discharge Q

(m3/s) Bilate Tena (m3/s) Bilate Halaba

450.00
400.00
350.00
300.00
250.00
200.00
150.00
100.00
50.00
0.00
10 25 50 100 200

Flood Discharge Q Flood Discharge Q

(m3/s) Bilate Tena (m3/s) Bilate Halaba

Figure 4. 7 Return period by Gumbel’s Method

Return period by Log person type III method

500.00
400.00
300.00
200.00
100.00
0.00
0 50 100 150 200 250

Flood Discharge Q Flood Discharge Q

(m3/s) Bilate Tena (m3/s) Bilate Halaba

51
 500.00
400.00
300.00
200.00
100.00
0.00
10 25 50 100 200

Flood Discharge Q Flood Discharge Q

(m3/s) Bilate Tena (m3/s) Bilate Halaba

Figure 4. 8 Flood Frequency by the Log Pearson Type III Method

4.4Flood Inundation Map

The computed maximum depth of water levels along the rivers and flood plains by the Gumbel’s
return period a little bit larger than the Log person type III method, for 2D simulation the Gumbel’s
method was selected for return period and flood inundation map. Based on the Gumbel’s stream flow
distribution 10-years and 200-years return periods flow depth are analyzed. Floodplain delineation used in
the Water surface TIN and terrain model to calculate the floodplain boundary and inundation depth. All
the cells in the water surface grid that result in positive values were converted to a polygon, which is the
final flood inundation polygon. The flood inundation maps for 10 years and 200 years return period
discharge were shown in Figure 4.9. It was simulated that Bilate Tena river station at depth of 0.01m a
discharge of 217.16m3/s for 10-years return period and 2m depth at discharge of 403.76 m3/s for 200-
years return period, Bilate Halaba station at depth of 0.01m a discharge of 209.71 m3/s for 10-years return
period and 2m depth at discharge of 362.71 m3/s for 200-years return period are obtained as shown in
Figure 4.9. Based on the result obtained by HEC RAS simulated at the Bilate Halaba and Bilate Tena
station the stream flood inundation was covers 14.35 sq.km for 10 years and 25.11 sq.km for 200 years
return period with minimum and maximum channel width of 95.5 meter and 4861.6 meters respectively.

52
 Flood inundation map for 10-years Flood inundation map for 200-years
Figure 4. 9 Flood inundation for 10 and 200 years return period.
This study mainly focused on the risky areas especially near downstream reach of Lake abaya
specially Humbo Woreda (Abaya Chokare and Abaya Bisare Kebeles), Deguna Fango Woreda
(Bilate Chericho and Bilate Eta Kebele), and Loko Abaya Woreda (Fango Bijo and Aleta sodo
Kebeles). The location and topography of these areas make them highly vulnerable to flooding.
The extent of inundation areas for the floods of different return periods were summarized in
Table 4.8.

53
Table 4. 8 Flood Hazard classification

S/no Flood Depth (m) Hazard Classes

1 <0.5 Very low
2 0.5-1 Low
3 1-1.5 Medium
4 1.5-2 High
5 2 Very High

Figure 4. 10 Flood inundation Map

4.4.1Flood Hazard Mapping

GIS is an important tool for delineating flood hazard and flood risk vulnerability mapping by
taking into account the determinant factors (Navarro, 1994; Nguyen and Vogel, 2007). Flood
hazard in a given area depends on physical and socio-economic factors. To delineate flood
hazard areas, thematic layers such as topographic factors and environmental data are developed
and weightage for different variables is determined carefully using methods suggested by
different workers (Siddayao et al., 2014; Ismail1 and Saanyo, 2013). In the present case, five
depth were considered while developing the flood hazard map (Fig 4.11). The flood hazard map
has five field class values namely very low, low, medium, high and very high. The very high and

54
high flood hazard areas are represented by orange and red colors respectively. The areas are
mostly covered by cultivated lands and grazing/range lands.
The light blue, green and yellow color indicate that the inundated Bilate River (stream)
represents D-Vel (Depth to velocity Max), WSE (Water Surface Elevation Max) and Boundary
Inundation respectively for the 10 and 200 years are estimated as shown in the figure 4.11 below.

Figure 4. 11 Flood hazard map of the study area

4.4.2Flood Vulnerability Analysis

The vulnerability maps for the flood areas were prepared by intersecting the land use map of the
floodplains with the flood area polygon for each of the flood event being modeled. This depicts
the vulnerability aspect of the flood risk in the particular area in terms of the presence or the
absence of flooding of a particular return period as a binary model. The assessment of the flood
areas indicated that a large percentage (more than 79%) of the vulnerable area was

55
cultivated/cropland land followed by grassland and shrub land or regularly flooded river
comprising 10.8% and 2.35% respectively. The land use area under the influence of modeled
flood is summarized in Table 4.9 and Figure 4.12. The table showed that 69,263, 9,460 and
5,725 hectares of cropland, grassland and shrub areas are respectively inundated by 10-year
flood. Similarly, 207789, 28380 and 17,181 hectare of cropland, grassland and shrub areas are
respectively inundated by a 200-year flood, which showed flooded area increased with increase
in flooding intensity, mostly cropland area was inundated by different year floods, which was
followed by grassland area. The result of the vulnerability map prepared of different year return
period floods by overlaying flooded area polygon with LULC.

Table 4. 9 Classification of Flood Area according to LULC Vulnerability

Total vulnerability area in hectare

LULC type 10 years 25 years 50 years 100 years 200 years
Area % Area % Area % Area % Area %
Forest 2045 2.35 2556 2.35 3068 2.35 4090 2.35 6135 2.35
Shrub 5727 6.58 7159 6.58 8591 6.58 11454 6.58 17181 6.58
Grass 9460 10.86 11825 10.86 14190 10.86 18920 10.86 28380 10.86
cultivate 69263 79.53 86579 79.53 103895 79.53 138526 79.53 207789 79.53
bare 96 0.11 120 0.11 144 0.11 192 0.11 288 0.11
biult up 207 0.24 259 0.24 311 0.24 414 0.24 621 0.24
water body 289 0.33 361 0.33 434 0.33 578 0.33 867 0.33
87087 100.00 108859 100.00 130631 100.00 174174 100.00 261261 100.00

56
Figure 4. 12 Vulnerability Map of 10-years and 200- years flood return period

4.4.3Flood Risk Mapping

Flood risk is the combination of flood hazards and vulnerabilities at a particular location. So, it
needs systematic assessment, collection and analysis of variables. GIS has emerged as an
essential tool in flood mapping and analysis because it enables preparation of maps inundated
areas (Beraand Bandhopadhyay, 2012). Flood risk map for the study area is developed based on
LULC, flood hazard and population density. However, like the flood hazard map model, the
variables weighted impacts were estimated based on the literature. Accordingly, population
density, flood hazard and LULC were found with a score value of 40%, 35% and 25%
respectively. As shown in the figure 4.13, the most risk vulnerable areas are found in the
cultivated land area. In fact, these areas are found within the surrounding land cover and have

57
more population density. Among the LULC, cultivated lands, grass and shrub lands lie with the
most risk areas.

Figure 4. 13 Flood risk map of the study area.

Flood risk map (Fig 4.13) shows the actual socioeconomic damage that could happen in a given
community or society. In the present case, the areas with high population density and grazing
land are more highly exposed to the possible damages. Flood risk map shows probability of
occurrence and degree of potential consequences. There are various variables and indicators
associate with flood risk (Ologunorisa and Abawua, 2005; Shimokawa and Takeuchi, 2006). In
other words, the least flood risk vulnerable areas lie in the western, southwestern and some parts
of northeastern part of the study area compared to the surrounding areas which lie in the least
flood hazard areas. These least affected areas are characterized by less population density, and

58
covered by forest land and bare/bushes. Thus suggesting that the flood risk vulnerability further
increases with increasing population density and land use cover in which the economic goods
like roads and buildings are concentrated. The flood risk vulnerability has been particularly
severe among the low income groups of the community who generally settle in fragile and flood
prone areas along the river banks (Zuluboy, 2011). Flood can affect directly or indirectly the
environmental, social and economic aspects of society (Levy and Hall, 2005). More people will
be put in jeopardy of flooding due to increasing levels of settlement (Alderman et al., 2012). In
countries like Ethiopia where settlement is taking place without proper land use planning are at
more risk. In general, study area flood risk map can help planners and decision makers in
evaluating the effectiveness of drainage infrastructure and development efforts. It requires the
knowledge about the elements of risk in respective parts.

Of course, these areas also the most victims of flood hazard and characterized by very high
populations. In contrast, the less flooded risky areas are characterized by less population density.
Accordingly, many parts of the community are highly exposed to the flood risks. Figure 9 shows
the flood risk map of study area only unlike of the road density and building density data were
not easily accessed.

Crop data (average crop grown per hectare and crop coverage in percent) was important to
quantify the amount of risk of the flood on the crop production. Inundated area has its own
productivity this means, the LULC areas (cropland, grassland, built up area and so on) has its
own inundated area. Therefore, inundated area of cropland was used to reach a better estimate of
risk in terms of crop loss. The risk was estimated as the amount of crop production from the land
in terms of quintal. Hence, the cost of the crop is fluctuating through time; it is difficult to
estimate the value of the crop in terms of money; So that it is better to quantify the risk in terms
of crop production.

59
5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusion
This study focused on a systematic approach in the preparation of vulnerability, hazard and risk
maps with the application of two-dimensional steady flow model Arc SWAT, HEC-RAS and
ArcGIS for spatial data processing. The automated floodplain mapping and analysis using these
tools provide more efficient, effective and standardized results and saves time and resources. The
flood inundation map delineation indicated that Humbo Woreda (Abaya Chokare and Abaya
Bisare Kebeles), Deguna FangoWoreda (Bilate Chericho and Bilate Eta Kebele), and Loko
Abaya Woreda (Fango Bijo and Aleta sodo Kebeles) to be the most affected areas. As a result,
the large percentage of extended flood inundate was lies on Humbo woreda, followed by Loko
Abaya and Deguna Fango woredas. The vulnerability assessment due to flooding was made with
regard to the land use/land cover pattern in the flood areas. This assessment of the flood shows
that a large percentage (more than 79 %) of the vulnerable area was cultivated/cropland land
followed by grassland and shrub land or regularly flooded river comprising 10.8% and 2.35%.
The flood hazard assessment was also made with relation to the flood water depth and their
return period. Which showed an inundated area of flood water depth 2m increased with increase
in the intensity of flooding whereas flood water depth < 0.5 and 1-1.5 meter decreased with the
increase in the intensity of flooding. The examination of the flood water depth shows that most
of the flooded areas had a water depth of less than 2 meters. HEC RAS simulated result at the Bilate
Halaba and Bilate Tena station, the stream flood inundation was covers 14.35 sq.km for 10 years return
periods and 25.11 sq.km for 200 years return period with minimum and maximum channel width of 95.5
meter and 4861.6 meters respectively.
The study also made the assessment of flood risk by combining the results of hazard and
vulnerability assessment. Based on this assessment, areas under cropland and grassland which
had the flood water depth of more than 2 m was very high. This indicated potential damages in
food production and negative effects on the livelihoods. The study also found out the flood risk
in terms of crop loss as the cropland was the most vulnerable land use.

Knowing the trend and status of such events will the help of these technologies will play a
significant role in reducing the likely deaths and property damages through dissemination of
information to the stakeholders. The results indicate that Humbo (Abaya Bisare and Abaya
Chokare) surrounding areas are highly exposed for both flood hazard and flood risk. Flood

60
hazard is most severe particularly in the areas that are covered by community settlement, high
flow accumulation and with flat topography. Hence, these areas are highly subjected to flood
hazards in contrast to the flood risk areas that are concentrated only. Flood risk is the probability
of causing likely damages on people’s livelihood and property. The areas described under this
category have high population, vulnerable to flood hazard and Flash flood is the type of flood
common in the study area which is caused by high runoff from the surrounding mountains.
Hence, it is advisable to rehabilitate and undertake plantation to minimize the problem. Further,
the existing drainage network of the area is very poor and it needs to be strengthened to sustain
high runoff. Flood hazard map can be used by the policy maker for the purpose of flood disaster
preparedness and early warning system. Therefore, damages that can lead to loss of human being
and property could be highly reduced. Finally, this research could be used as panacea to
undertake further similar comprehensive and detail research studies to explicitly define and
address the problem.

5.2Recommendations
Flood controlling mechanisms in the flood prone area must be introduce like building a dike,
afforestation program on the high lands and bare lands, wise utilization of the farm lands like
mixed farming can be introduced. Incorporating a flood warning system into community
preparedness activities in the area have strengthened local capabilities in making timely and
accurate decisions for the protection of lives and property. The responsible bodies of the Woreda
as well as the Region should incorporate the flood hazard and flood risk assessment studies in
their development strategies. Encourage the community to be involved in the flood action plan to
mitigate the flood hazard and improve their awareness on the negative consequences of flooding.

Data Related Limitations:

 The major hydrologic parameter, flow data and recorded water surface elevation (high
water marks) of flood at each river cross-section was not enough for the calibration and
validation of the model. Model Related Limitations:
 The HEC-RAS model assumes that canal geometry has a fixed boundary during the
runoff event to be modeled.
 The unsteady, Two-dimensional model was used in this study; the results are also
affected by the limitations of assumptions used in such a model.

61
 The assumption of two-dimensional flow may not be always a valid assumption. The
divided flow pattern within a cross-section produces multiple water surface elevations
and multiple flow paths.

62
6. REFERNCES
A. Hamdan, A., 2016. Controlling The Surface Water of Shatt Al Arab River by using Sluice
Gates. J. Babylon Univ. 24, 2016.
Ahmad, H.F., Alam, A., Bhat, M.S., Ahmad, S., 2016. One Dimensional Steady Flow Analysis
Using HECRAS – A case of River Jhelum, Jammu and Kashmir. Eur. Sci. J. ESJ 12,
340–340. https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2016.v12n32p340
Ahn, J., Cho, W., Kim, T., Shin, H., Heo, J.-H., 2014. Flood Frequency Analysis for the Annual
Peak Flows Simulated by an Event-Based Rainfall-Runoff Model in an Urban Drainage
Basin. Water.
Alemayehu D (2007) Assessment of Flood Risk in Dire Dawa Town, Eastern Ethiopia using
GIS. Addiss Abeba University.
Apel, H., Thieken, A.H., Merz, B., Blöschl, G., 2004. Flood risk assessment and associated
uncertainty. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 4, 295–308. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-4-
295-2004
Aris MM (2003) GIS modelling for river and tidal flood hazards in waterfront city:case study in
samurangu city, Java, Indonsia. ITC, Netherlands.
Ashenafi, Abraha Adugna (2006) Flood Modeling and Forecasting for Awash River Basin in
Ethiopia. UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, Delft, the Netherlands.
Awal, R., 2003. Application of Steady and Unsteady Flow Model and GIS for Floodplain
Analysis and Risk Mapping: A Case Study of Lakhandei River, Nepal.
Awal, R., Shakya, N.M., 2007. Floodplain Analysis and Risk Assessment of Lakhandei River.
Awal, R., Shakya, N.M., Jha, R., 2005. Application of Hydraulic Model and GIS for Floodplain
Analysis and Risk Assessment: A Case Study of Lakhandei River, Nepal.
Ayenew T, Kebede S, Alemyahu T (2008) Environmental isotopes and hydrochemical study
applied to surface water and groundwater interaction in the Awash. Hydrol Process 22:
1548-1563.
Bishaw K (2012) Application of GIS and Remote Sensing Techniques for Flood Hazard and
RiskAssessment: The Case of Dugeda Bora Woreda of Oromiya Regional State,
Ethiopia. Berlin Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change.
Ethiopian Civil Service University. Addis Ababa.
Brunner P (2013) Advance in hydrological engineering, unsteady flow hydrulics modle of lower
Columbia River system.

63
Gilard, O., 2002. Flood risk management: Risk cartography for objective negotiations, in:
Bogardi, J.J., Kundzewicz, Z.W. (Eds.), Risk, Reliability, Uncertainty, and Robustness of
Water Resource Systems, International Hydrology Series. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, pp. 47–53. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511546006.006
Halcrow W (1989) Master Plan for the Development of Surface Water Resources in the Awash
Basin, Ethiopian Valleys Development Authority. Final Report vol. 2. Addis Ababa.
Herold, Mouton (2010) Global flood hazard mapping using statistical peak flow estimates.
UNEP/GRID-Europe, Geneva, Switzerland and UFR de Mathématiques, Université J
Fourier, Grenoble, France.
Harlan, Bengtson H (2002) Frequency Analysis of Flood Data, Hydraulic Design Series No. 2,
Second Edition. Continuing Education and Development, Inc., U.S. Department of
Transportation, National Highway Institute.
Hassan, A., Norio, T., Nobuyuki, T., 2009. Distributed water balance with river dynamic-
diffusive flow routing model. J. Hydrodyn. Ser B 21, 564–572.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-6058(08)60185-7
Horritt, M.S., Bates, P.D., 2002. Evaluation of 1D and 2D numerical models for predicting river
flood inundation. J. Hydrol. 268, 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(02)00121-X
. Dettinger, Michael (2011) Climate Change, Atmospheric Rivers, and Floods in California, A
Multimodal Analysis of Storm Frequency and Magnitude Changes. Journal of the
American Water Resources Association.
Khalil, R., 2018. Flood Risk Code Mapping Using Multi Criteria Assessment. J. Geogr. Inf. Syst.
10, 686–698. https://doi.org/10.4236/jgis.2018.106035
Kubal, C., Haase, D., Meyer, V., Scheuer, S., 2009. Integrated urban flood risk assessment –
adapting a multicriteria approach to a city. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 9, 1881–1895.
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-9-1881-2009
Manandhar, B., 2010. Flood Plain Analysis and Risk Assessment of Lothar Khola.
https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.1664.1289
Loveridge M, Rahman A, Babister M (2013) Probabilistic flood hydrographs using Monte Carlo
simulation: potential impact to flood inundation mapping.20th International Congress on
Modelling and Simulation, Adelaide, Australia, 1-6 December.

64
Osti, R., 2004. Forms of community participation and agencies’ role for the implementation of
water‐induced disaster management: protecting and enhancing the poor. Disaster Prev.
Manag. Int. J. https://doi.org/10.1108/09653560410521643
Panagoulia D, Mamassis N, Gkiokas A (2013) Deciphering the floodplain inundation maps in
Greece. 8th International Conference Water Resources Management in an
Interdisciplinary and Changing Context, Porto, Portugal, European Water Resources
Association.
Papaioannou, G., Efstratiadis, A., Vasiliades, L., Loukas, A., Papalexiou, S.M., Koukouvinos,
A., Tsoukalas, I., Kossieris, P., 2018. An Operational Method for Flood Directive
Implementation in Ungauged Urban Areas. Hydrology 5, 24.
https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology5020024
Ramesh (2011) Optimal Spatial Interpolation and Data-Driven Methods for Infilling Missing
Rain Gage Records using Radar (NEXRAD) based Precipitation Data. J Hydrologic Eng
ASCE.
Shantosh K (2010) GIS based flood hazard mapping and vulnerability assessment of people due
to climate change a case study Kankai River Basin, East Nepal. National Adaptation
Programme of Action (NAPA) Ministry of Environment.
Sharma, K.P., Adhikari, N.R., Ghimire, P.K., Chapagain, P.S., 2003. GIS-based flood risk
zoning of the Khando river basin in the Terai region of east Nepal. Himal. J. Sci. 1, 103–
106. https://doi.org/10.3126/hjs.v1i2.206
Singh, S.K., n.d. Analysis of Uncertainties In Digital Elevation Models in Flood (Hydraulic)
Modelling 87.
Vivekanandan, N., 2014. Comparison of Probability Distributions for Estimation of Peak Flood
Discharge. Open Access Libr. J. 1, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1100498

65
Annexs

Annex A1; Table

BilateHalaba Station Log
Person Type II Method

Plotting Position
Annual daily Maximum Ranked (Gringorten) - (Xi -
Rank Flood (m3/s) Flow F(X) Log (x) Xbar)^3
1 105 168 0.969 2.225 0.022
2 58 154 0.914 2.188 0.014
3 74 140 0.859 2.146 0.008
4 89 140 0.804 2.146 0.008
5 43 126 0.748 2.100 0.004
6 39 122 0.693 2.086 0.003
7 45 119 0.638 2.076 0.002
8 97 116 0.583 2.064 0.002
9 116 116 0.528 2.064 0.002
10 119 105 0.472 2.021 0.000
11 116 97 0.417 1.987 0.000
12 168 89 0.362 1.949 0.000
13 122 74 0.307 1.869 0.000
14 126 58 0.252 1.763 -0.006
15 140 45 0.196 1.653 -0.025
16 140 43 0.141 1.633 -0.031
17 154 39 0.086 1.591 -0.045
18 30 30 0.031 1.477 -0.104
SUM -0.148
Sample Statistics
Mean 98.94 1.95
St. Dev. 42.18 0.23
CV. 0.43 0.12
CS -0.83

LP 3 Distribution , Cs ≈ - 0.10
T K(T) Log (QT) Q(T)
10 1.216 2.223 167.30 207.45
25 1.567 2.303 201.08 249.34
50 1.777 2.351 224.48 278.35
100 1.955 2.392 246.42 305.56
200 2.108 2.427 266.99 331.07

66
Annex tableA2
BilateTena Station Log Person
Type II Method

Plotting Position
Annual daily Maximum Ranked (Gringorten) - (Xi -
Rank Flood (m3/s) Flow F(X) Log (x) Xbar)^3
1 193 193 0.967 2.286 0.074
2 157 157 0.909 2.196 0.036
3 142 142 0.850 2.152 0.024
4 56 134 0.792 2.127 0.018
5 72 129 0.734 2.111 0.015
6 22 110 0.675 2.041 0.005
7 94 109 0.617 2.037 0.005
8 129 107 0.558 2.029 0.004
9 109 94 0.500 1.973 0.001
10 107 72 0.442 1.857 0.000
11 134 61 0.383 1.785 -0.001
12 23 56 0.325 1.748 -0.002
13 23 50 0.266 1.699 -0.005
14 110 40 0.208 1.602 -0.018
15 61 23 0.150 1.362 -0.128
16 50 23 0.091 1.362 -0.128
17 40 22 0.033 1.342 -0.143
SUM -0.240
Sample Statistics
Mean 89.53 1.87
St. Dev. 51.44 0.31
CV. 0.57 0.16
CS -0.60

LP 3 Distribution , Cs ≈ - 0.10
T K(T) Log (QT) Q(T)
10 1.216 2.237 172.54 213.95
25 1.567 2.344 220.87 273.88
50 1.777 2.408 256.04 317.49
100 1.955 2.463 290.20 359.85
200 2.108 2.509 323.18 400.75

67
Annex able A3
BilateHalaba Station Gumbel’s
Method

Plotting Position
Annual daily Maximum Ranked (Gringorten) -
Rank Flood (m3/s) Flow F(X) Log (x) (Xi - Xbar)^3
1 105 168 0.969 2.225 0.022
2 58 154 0.914 2.188 0.014
3 74 140 0.859 2.146 0.008
4 89 140 0.804 2.146 0.008
5 43 126 0.748 2.100 0.004
6 39 122 0.693 2.086 0.003
7 45 119 0.638 2.076 0.002
8 97 116 0.583 2.064 0.002
9 116 116 0.528 2.064 0.002
10 119 105 0.472 2.021 0.000
11 116 97 0.417 1.987 0.000
12 168 89 0.362 1.949 0.000
13 122 74 0.307 1.869 0.000
14 126 58 0.252 1.763 -0.006
15 140 45 0.196 1.653 -0.025
16 140 43 0.141 1.633 -0.031
17 154 39 0.086 1.591 -0.045
18 30 30 0.031 1.477 -0.104
SUM -0.148
Sample Statistics 17
Mean 98.94 1.95
St. Dev. 42.18 0.23
Yn 0.5181 0.12
Sn 1.0411 -0.83

T Yt K Xt
10 2.250 1.664 169.12 209.71
25 3.199 2.575 207.54 257.35
50 3.902 3.250 236.03 292.68
100 4.600 3.921 264.32 327.76
200 5.296 4.589 292.50 362.71

Annex table A4
BilateTena Station Gumbel’s Method

68
 Plotting Position
Annual daily Maximum Ranked (Gringorten) -
Rank Flood (m3/s) Flow F(X) Log (x) (Xi - Xbar)^3
1 193 193 0.967 2.286 0.074
2 157 157 0.909 2.196 0.036
3 142 142 0.850 2.152 0.024
4 56 134 0.792 2.127 0.018
5 72 129 0.734 2.111 0.015
6 22 110 0.675 2.041 0.005
7 94 109 0.617 2.037 0.005
8 129 107 0.558 2.029 0.004
9 109 94 0.500 1.973 0.001
10 107 72 0.442 1.857 0.000
11 134 61 0.383 1.785 -0.001
12 23 56 0.325 1.748 -0.002
13 23 50 0.266 1.699 -0.005
14 110 40 0.208 1.602 -0.018
15 61 23 0.150 1.362 -0.128
16 50 23 0.091 1.362 -0.128
17 40 22 0.033 1.342 -0.143
SUM -0.240
Sample Statistics 17
Mean 89.53 1.87
St. Dev. 51.44 0.31
Yn 0.5181 0.16
Sn 1.0411 -0.60

LP 3 Distribution , Cs ≈ - 0.10
T Yt K Xt
2 0.367 -0.146 82.04 101.73
5 1.500 0.943 138.05 171.18
10 2.250 1.664 175.13 217.16
25 3.199 2.575 221.98 275.25
50 3.902 3.250 256.74 318.35
100 4.600 3.921 291.24 361.13
200 5.296 4.589 325.61 403.76

Annex table B1
_____________________________________________________________________________________

69
Detailed LANDUSE/SOIL/SLOPE distribution SWAT model class Date: 12/31/2021 00:00:00 Time:
08:56:35.9215540

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Area [ha] Area[acres]

Watershed 505443.6400 1248976.5066

Number of Subbasins: 5

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Area [ha] Area[acres] %Wat.Area

LANDUSE:

Forest-Mixed --> FRST 11825.7015 29221.8997 2.34

Range-Grasses --> RNGE 33797.9158 83516.3399 6.69

Pasture --> PAST 58153.3979 143699.9539 11.51

Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL 398168.8888 983895.2327 78.78

Winter Pasture --> WPAS 499.5450 1234.4007 0.10

Range-Brush --> RNGB 118.3807 292.5247 0.02

Apartment --> APAT 1099.0951 2715.9190 0.22

Water --> WATR 1780.7151 4400.2360 0.35

SOILS:

ANDO 156208.4248 385998.8280 30.91

FLUS 55942.2366 138236.0638 11.07

LEPO 8160.6232 20165.3079 1.61

LUVO 29711.7593 73419.2427 5.88

NITO 45993.6922 113652.7131 9.10

PHE 6008.7123 14847.8286 1.19

REGO 16703.7318 41275.7565 3.30

SOLO 41123.1483 101617.3555 8.14

VERTO 142089.0518 351109.1514 28.11

70
 XERO 3502.2598 8654.2590 0.69

SLOPE:

0-20 370042.7987 914394.2577 73.21

100-9999 557.9147 1378.6351 0.11

20-40 112251.9058 277380.0719 22.21

40-60 17665.9905 43653.5459 3.50

60-100 4925.0303 12169.9961 0.97

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Area [ha] Area[acres] %Wat.Area%Sub.Area

SUBBASIN # 1 40493.0400 100060.3265 8.01

LANDUSE:

Forest-Mixed --> FRST 2143.2635 5296.1113 0.42 5.29

Range-Grasses --> RNGE 115.6984 285.8966 0.02 0.29

Pasture --> PAST 3054.3987 7547.5720 0.60 7.54

Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL 35162.9572 86889.4255 6.96 86.84

Winter Pasture --> WPAS 0.0801 0.1979 0.00 0.00

Range-Brush --> RNGB 3.4029 8.4087 0.00 0.01

Apartment --> APAT 8.8075 21.7638 0.00 0.02

SOILS:

FLUS 15761.8104 38948.2216 3.12 38.92

LEPO 7686.0995 18992.7361 1.52 18.98

LUVO 999.1301 2468.9004 0.20 2.47

SOLO 8636.5481 21341.3422 1.71 21.33

VERTO 6682.6057 16513.0528 1.32 16.50

XERO 722.4146 1785.1227 0.14 1.78

71
SLOPE:

0-20 26520.0037 65532.2551 5.25 65.49

100-9999 167.7828 414.5996 0.03 0.41

20-40 10518.8296 25992.5539 2.08 25.98

40-60 2314.6093 5719.5153 0.46 5.72

60-100 967.3831 2390.4519 0.19 2.39

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Area [ha] Area[acres] %Wat.Area%Sub.Area

SUBBASIN # 2 126290.8000 312070.8813 24.99

LANDUSE:

Forest-Mixed --> FRST 3129.2224 7732.4650 0.62 2.48

Range-Grasses --> RNGE 755.0424 1865.7475 0.15 0.60

Pasture --> PAST 11121.2221 27481.0959 2.20 8.81

Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL 109090.2959 269567.5756 21.58 86.38

Winter Pasture --> WPAS 315.3483 779.2414 0.06 0.25

Range-Brush --> RNGB 64.4548 159.2711 0.01 0.05

Apartment --> APAT 192.9642 476.8241 0.04 0.15

Water --> WATR 1603.9246 3963.3780 0.32 1.27

SOILS:

ANDO 39799.3019 98346.0650 7.87 31.51

FLUS 1001.4120 2474.5392 0.20 0.79

LEPO 474.5237 1172.5719 0.09 0.38

LUVO 4363.1122 10781.4684 0.86 3.45

NITO 1972.8786 4875.0816 0.39 1.56

PHE 4491.0210 11097.5375 0.89 3.56

72
 SOLO 32486.6001 80276.0133 6.43 25.72

VERTO 38939.3703 96221.1309 7.70 30.83

XERO 2744.2549 6781.1910 0.54 2.17

SLOPE:

0-20 88070.4919 217626.5889 17.42 69.74

100-9999 123.7853 305.8797 0.02 0.10

20-40 31385.4633 77555.0490 6.21 24.85

40-60 5371.1699 13272.4293 1.06 4.25

60-100 1321.5644 3265.6517 0.26 1.05

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Area [ha] Area[acres] %Wat.Area%Sub.Area

SUBBASIN # 3 86290.5600 213228.2883 17.07

LANDUSE:

Forest-Mixed --> FRST 567.8431 1403.1688 0.11 0.66

Range-Grasses --> RNGE 1360.5976 3362.1047 0.27 1.58

Pasture --> PAST 4023.2230 9941.5853 0.80 4.66

Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL 79941.2954 197538.9380 15.82 92.64

Winter Pasture --> WPAS 34.2291 84.5819 0.01 0.04

Range-Brush --> RNGB 3.1627 7.8152 0.00 0.00

Apartment --> APAT 386.6890 955.5279 0.08 0.45

SOILS:

ANDO 62147.5962 153569.8177 12.30 72.02

FLUS 868.2988 2145.6097 0.17 1.01

LUVO 8925.0736 22054.3031 1.77 10.34

NITO 7933.7502 19604.6934 1.57 9.19

73
 PHE 1517.6913 3750.2910 0.30 1.76

REGO 2039.2951 5039.2001 0.40 2.36

VERTO 2861.1543 7070.0554 0.57 3.32

XERO 24.1806 59.7514 0.00 0.03

SLOPE:

0-20 66810.8438 165092.9356 13.22 77.43

100-9999 62.6533 154.8195 0.01 0.07

20-40 16675.5478 41206.1125 3.30 19.32

40-60 2212.8828 5468.1439 0.44 2.56

60-100 555.1123 1371.7102 0.11 0.64

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Area [ha] Area[acres] %Wat.Area%Sub.Area

SUBBASIN # 4 121462.7200 300140.4543 24.03

LANDUSE:

Forest-Mixed --> FRST 761.9283 1882.7628 0.15 0.63

Range-Grasses --> RNGE 5473.2968 13524.7900 1.08 4.51

Pasture --> PAST 7563.3951 18689.5274 1.50 6.23

Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL 107120.4199 264699.9135 21.19 88.19

Winter Pasture --> WPAS 51.6840 127.7137 0.01 0.04

Range-Brush --> RNGB 16.8944 41.7468 0.00 0.01

Apartment --> APAT 355.5825 878.6622 0.07 0.29

Water --> WATR 176.6703 436.5612 0.03 0.15

SOILS:

ANDO 39006.9077 96388.0194 7.72 32.11

74
 FLUS 23460.7608 57972.7130 4.64 19.32

LUVO 8365.7577 20672.2056 1.66 6.89

NITO 8329.3668 20582.2817 1.65 6.86

REGO 14664.4368 36236.5564 2.90 12.07

VERTO 27681.2317 68401.7075 5.48 22.79

XERO 11.4097 28.1940 0.00 0.01

SLOPE:

0-20 92225.1067 227892.8499 18.25 75.93

100-9999 106.6507 263.5393 0.02 0.09

20-40 24697.1327 61027.8499 4.89 20.33

40-60 3486.9267 8616.3703 0.69 2.87

60-100 1004.0543 2481.0683 0.20 0.83

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Area [ha] Area[acres] %Wat.Area%Sub.Area

SUBBASIN # 5 130906.5200 323476.5562 25.90

LANDUSE:

Forest-Mixed --> FRST 5223.4442 12907.3918 1.03 3.99

Range-Grasses --> RNGE 26093.2806 64477.8010 5.16 19.93

Pasture --> PAST 32391.1589 80040.1733 6.41 24.74

Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL 66853.9204 165199.3801 13.23 51.07

Winter Pasture --> WPAS 98.2036 242.6659 0.02 0.08

Range-Brush --> RNGB 30.4659 75.2828 0.01 0.02

Apartment --> APAT 155.0519 383.1410 0.03 0.12

Water --> WATR 0.1201 0.2968 0.00 0.00

SOILS:

75
 ANDO 15254.6189 37694.9260 3.02 11.65

FLUS 14849.9546 36694.9803 2.94 11.34

LUVO 7058.6856 17442.3652 1.40 5.39

NITO 27757.6967 68590.6565 5.49 21.20

VERTO 65924.6898 162903.2048 13.04 50.36

SLOPE:

0-20 96416.3527 238249.6283 19.08 73.65

100-9999 97.0426 239.7970 0.02 0.07

20-40 28974.9324 71598.5066 5.73 22.13

40-60 4280.4018 10577.0870 0.85 3.27

60-100 1076.9163 2661.1139 0.21 0.82

Annex Table B2
____________________________________________________________________________________

76
SWAT model simulation Date: 1/27/2022 00:00:00 Time: 00:00:00

MULTIPLE HRUs LandUse/Soil/Slope OPTION THRESHOLDS : 5 / 5 / 10 [%]

Number of HRUs: 94

Number of Subbasins: 5

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Area [ha] Area[acres]

Watershed 505443.6400 1248976.5066

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Area [ha] Area[acres] %Wat.Area

LANDUSE:

Forest-Mixed --> FRST 2150.0601 5312.9060 0.43

Pasture --> PAST 56574.6669 139798.8307 11.19

Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL 419479.1107 1036553.8564 82.99

Range-Grasses --> RNGE 27239.8023 67310.9135 5.39

SOILS:

FLUS 53601.2310 132451.3218 10.60

LEPO 8082.6048 19972.5206 1.60

SOLO 46111.8554 113944.7003 9.12

VERTO 145521.7233 359591.4543 28.79

ANDO 166252.8977 410819.2229 32.89

LUVO 24313.4634 60079.7838 4.81

NITO 46245.0881 114273.9250 9.15

REGO 15314.7763 37843.5779 3.03

77
SLOPE:

20-40 115273.3295 284846.1609 22.81

0-20 385769.5822 953255.9261 76.32

60-100 215.4921 532.4918 0.04

40-60 4185.2362 10341.9279 0.83

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Area [ha] Area[acres] %Wat.Area%Sub.Area

SUBBASIN # 1 40493.0400 100060.3265 8.01

LANDUSE:

Forest-Mixed --> FRST 2150.0601 5312.9060 0.43 5.31

Pasture --> PAST 3064.0846 7571.5063 0.61 7.57

Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL 35274.4637 87164.9634 6.98 87.11

SOILS:

FLUS 16524.8059 40833.6216 3.27 40.81

LEPO 8082.6048 19972.5206 1.60 19.96

SOLO 9048.4395 22359.1464 1.79 22.35

VERTO 6832.7582 16884.0871 1.35 16.87

SLOPE:

20-40 10964.9100 27094.8408 2.17 27.08

78
 0-20 28258.9561 69829.2934 5.59 69.79

60-100 215.4921 532.4918 0.04 0.53

40-60 1049.2502 2592.7498 0.21 2.59

HRUs

1 Forest-Mixed --> FRST/FLUS/20-40 260.7527 644.3329 0.05 0.64 1

2 Forest-Mixed --> FRST/FLUS/0-20 675.2278 1668.5216 0.13 1.67 2

3 Forest-Mixed --> FRST/LEPO/0-20 229.5378 567.1993 0.05 0.57 3

4 Forest-Mixed --> FRST/LEPO/60-100 166.2232 410.7459 0.03 0.41 4

5 Forest-Mixed --> FRST/LEPO/20-40 287.0350 709.2777 0.06 0.71 5

6 Forest-Mixed --> FRST/LEPO/40-60 200.4059 495.2129 0.04 0.49 6

7 Forest-Mixed --> FRST/SOLO/0-20 242.5171 599.2718 0.05 0.60 7

8 Forest-Mixed --> FRST/SOLO/20-40 88.3607 218.3438 0.02 0.22 8

9 Pasture --> PAST/FLUS/0-20 1175.1988 2903.9750 0.23 2.90 9

10 Pasture --> PAST/FLUS/20-40 678.2754 1676.0525 0.13 1.68 10

11 Pasture --> PAST/LEPO/20-40 113.6093 280.7343 0.02 0.28 11

12 Pasture --> PAST/LEPO/40-60 66.4117 164.1065 0.01 0.16 12

13 Pasture --> PAST/LEPO/60-100 49.2689 121.7459 0.01 0.12 13

14 Pasture --> PAST/LEPO/0-20 99.6836 246.3231 0.02 0.25 14

15 Pasture --> PAST/SOLO/0-20 567.9115 1403.3376 0.11 1.40 15

16 Pasture --> PAST/SOLO/20-40 313.7255 775.2313 0.06 0.77 16

17 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/FLUS/0-20 10502.8222 25952.9988 2.08

25.94

18 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/FLUS/20-40 3232.5290 7987.7408 0.64

7.98

79
19 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/LEPO/0-20 3771.1813 9318.7776 0.75
9.31

20 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/LEPO/20-40 2316.8155 5724.9668 0.46

5.72

21 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/LEPO/40-60 782.4327 1933.4303 0.15

1.93

22 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/SOLO/0-20 5910.7794 14605.8315 1.17

14.60

23 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/SOLO/20-40 1925.1453 4757.1303 0.38

4.75

24 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/VERTO/0-20 5084.0966 12563.0569 1.01

12.56

25 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/VERTO/20-40 1748.6616 4321.0302 0.35

4.32

___________________________________________________________________________________

Area [ha] Area[acres] %Wat.Area%Sub.Area

SUBBASIN # 2 126290.8000 312070.8813 24.99

LANDUSE:

Pasture --> PAST 11681.9442 28866.6681 2.31 9.25

Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL 114590.5306 283158.9306 22.67 90.74

SOILS:

ANDO 46158.2135 114059.2536 9.13 36.55

SOLO 37063.4159 91585.5539 7.33 29.35

80
 VERTO 43050.8453 106380.7913 8.52 34.09

SLOPE:

20-40 32377.1200 80005.4823 6.41 25.64

0-20 93895.3548 232020.1164 18.58 74.35

HRUs

26 Pasture --> PAST/ANDO/20-40 1065.5586 2633.0485 0.21 0.84 1

27 Pasture --> PAST/ANDO/0-20 2593.2991 6408.1718 0.51 2.05 2

28 Pasture --> PAST/SOLO/0-20 2351.3269 5810.2463 0.47 1.86 3

29 Pasture --> PAST/SOLO/20-40 1346.5021 3327.2740 0.27 1.07 4

30 Pasture --> PAST/VERTO/20-40 1389.8631 3434.4211 0.27 1.10 5

31 Pasture --> PAST/VERTO/0-20 2935.3944 7253.5063 0.58 2.32 6

32 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/ANDO/0-20 36205.8418 89466.4454 7.16 28.67

7

33 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/ANDO/20-40 6293.5140 15551.5878 1.25 4.98

8

34 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/SOLO/0-20 23562.8649 58225.0174 4.66 18.66

9

35 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/SOLO/20-40 9802.7220 24223.0162 1.94 7.76

10

36 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/VERTO/0-20 26246.6276 64856.7292 5.19 20.78

11

37 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/VERTO/20-40 12478.9602 30836.1347 2.47 9.88

12

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Area [ha] Area[acres] %Wat.Area%Sub.Area

81
SUBBASIN # 3 86290.5600 213228.2883 17.07

LANDUSE:

Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL 86317.0400 213293.7217 17.08 100.03

SOILS:

ANDO 68700.9179 169763.4033 13.59 79.62

LUVO 9164.7840 22646.6396 1.81 10.62

NITO 8451.3380 20883.6788 1.67 9.79

SLOPE:

20-40 16069.7416 39709.1349 3.18 18.62

0-20 69203.9157 171006.3359 13.69 80.20

40-60 1043.3827 2578.2509 0.21 1.21

HRUs

38 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/ANDO/20-40 10407.3525 25717.0884 2.06 12.06

1

39 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/ANDO/0-20 58293.5654 144046.3149 11.53 67.55 2

40 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/LUVO/0-20 4579.7489 11316.7885 0.91 5.31 3

41 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/LUVO/40-60 1043.3827 2578.2509 0.21 1.21

4

42 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/LUVO/20-40 3541.6524 8751.6002 0.70 4.10

5

43 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/NITO/20-40 2120.7366 5240.4462 0.42 2.46 6

82
44 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/NITO/0-20 6330.6014 15643.2326 1.25 7.34 7

____________________________________________________________________________________

Area [ha] Area[acres] %Wat.Area %Sub.Area

SUBBASIN # 4 121462.7200 300140.4543 24.03

LANDUSE:

Pasture --> PAST 8014.2328 19803.5700 1.59 6.60

Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL 113505.6383 280478.1076 22.46 93.45

SOILS:

ANDO 39443.0585 97465.7698 7.80 32.47

FLUS 22359.0802 55250.4052 4.42 18.41

LUVO 8198.5932 20259.1338 1.62 6.75

REGO 15314.7763 37843.5779 3.03 12.61

VERTO 27881.1195 68895.6403 5.52 22.95

NITO 8323.2434 20567.1506 1.65 6.85

SLOPE:

20-40 25484.0021 62972.2434 5.04 20.98

0-20 94925.7821 234566.3540 18.78 78.15

40-60 1110.0869 2743.0803 0.22 0.91

HRUs

45 Pasture --> PAST/ANDO/20-40 287.5007 710.4287 0.06 0.24 1

83
46 Pasture --> PAST/ANDO/0-20 444.4434 1098.2418 0.09 0.37 2

47 Pasture --> PAST/FLUS/0-20 2017.8036 4986.0935 0.40 1.66 3

48 Pasture --> PAST/FLUS/20-40 889.2942 2197.4904 0.18 0.73 4

49 Pasture --> PAST/LUVO/0-20 483.0180 1193.5617 0.10 0.40 5

50 Pasture --> PAST/LUVO/20-40 587.7753 1452.4222 0.12 0.48 6

51 Pasture --> PAST/LUVO/40-60 266.2921 658.0211 0.05 0.22 7

52 Pasture --> PAST/REGO/0-20 1031.3562 2548.5328 0.20 0.85 8

53 Pasture --> PAST/REGO/20-40 318.3445 786.6452 0.06 0.26 9

54 Pasture --> PAST/VERTO/0-20 1270.8971 3140.4502 0.25 1.05 10

55 Pasture --> PAST/VERTO/20-40 417.5077 1031.6824 0.08 0.34 11

56 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/ANDO/20-40 7263.7273 17949.0333 1.44 5.98

12

57 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/ANDO/0-20 31447.3872 77708.0660 6.22 25.89

13

58 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/FLUS/0-20 16254.2128 40164.9726 3.22 13.38

14

59 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/FLUS/20-40 3197.7696 7901.8487 0.63 2.63 15

60 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/LUVO/40-60 843.7948 2085.0591 0.17 0.69

16

61 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/LUVO/20-40 2569.7937 6350.0886 0.51 2.12

17

62 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/LUVO/0-20 3447.9193 8519.9810 0.68 2.84

18

63 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/NITO/20-40 2018.6128 4988.0932 0.40 1.66 19

64 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/NITO/0-20 6304.6306 15579.0574 1.25 5.19

20

84
65 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/REGO/0-20 11004.5673 27192.8360 2.18 9.06
21

66 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/REGO/20-40 2960.5083 7315.5640 0.59 2.44 22

67 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/VERTO/0-20 21219.5467 52434.5609 4.20 17.47

23

68 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/VERTO/20-40 4973.1680 12288.9469 0.98 4.09

24

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Area [ha] Area[acres] %Wat.Area%Sub.Area

SUBBASIN # 5 130906.5200 323476.5562 25.90

LANDUSE:

Range-Grasses --> RNGE 27239.8023 67310.9135 5.39 20.81

Pasture --> PAST 33814.4053 83557.0863 6.69 25.83

Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL 69791.4381 172458.1330 13.81 53.31

SOILS:

ANDO 11950.7077 29530.7963 2.36 9.13

NITO 29470.5067 72823.0956 5.83 22.51

VERTO 67757.0003 167430.9355 13.41 51.76

FLUS 14717.3448 36367.2950 2.91 11.24

LUVO 6950.0861 17174.0104 1.38 5.31

85
SLOPE:

0-20 99485.5735 245833.8263 19.68 76.00

20-40 30377.5559 75064.4595 6.01 23.21

40-60 982.5163 2427.8470 0.19 0.75

HRUs

69 Range-Grasses --> RNGE/ANDO/0-20 6705.9385 16570.7093 1.33 5.12 1

70 Range-Grasses --> RNGE/ANDO/20-40 1220.0070 3014.6984 0.24 0.93 2

71 Range-Grasses --> RNGE/NITO/20-40 1525.7552 3770.2174 0.30 1.17 3

72 Range-Grasses --> RNGE/NITO/0-20 5008.0810 12375.2185 0.99 3.83 4

73 Range-Grasses --> RNGE/VERTO/20-40 2239.7892 5534.6311 0.44 1.71 5

74 Range-Grasses --> RNGE/VERTO/0-20 10540.2314 26045.4388 2.09 8.05 6

75 Pasture --> PAST/FLUS/0-20 1929.8044 4768.6432 0.38 1.47 7

76 Pasture --> PAST/FLUS/20-40 631.1721 1559.6578 0.12 0.48 8

77 Pasture --> PAST/LUVO/20-40 1020.0222 2520.5260 0.20 0.78 9

78 Pasture --> PAST/LUVO/0-20 937.2197 2315.9168 0.19 0.72 10

79 Pasture --> PAST/LUVO/40-60 421.5532 1041.6790 0.08 0.32 11

80 Pasture --> PAST/NITO/0-20 11457.8873 28313.0124 2.27 8.75 12

81 Pasture --> PAST/NITO/20-40 4145.3423 10243.3481 0.82 3.17 13

82 Pasture --> PAST/VERTO/20-40 2826.6232 6984.7273 0.56 2.16 14

83 Pasture --> PAST/VERTO/0-20 10444.7809 25809.5758 2.07 7.98 15

84 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/ANDO/20-40 669.1257 1653.4430 0.13 0.51 16

85 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/ANDO/0-20 3355.6365 8291.9456 0.66 2.56 17

86 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/FLUS/20-40 2998.1089 7408.4770 0.59 2.29 18

87 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/FLUS/0-20 9158.2594 22630.5170 1.81 7.00 19

86
88 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/LUVO/0-20 2240.3917 5536.1199 0.44 1.71 20

89 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/LUVO/20-40 1769.9362 4373.6008 0.35 1.35 21

90 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/LUVO/40-60 560.9631 1386.1680 0.11 0.43 22

91 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/NITO/0-20 5217.4495 12892.5787 1.03 3.99 23

92 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/NITO/20-40 2115.9914 5228.7205 0.42 1.62 24

93 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/VERTO/20-40 9215.6825 22772.4122 1.82 7.04 25

94 Agricultural Land-Generic --> AGRL/VERTO/0-20 32489.8931 80284.1503 6.43 24.82 26

87
Annex C1: Flood simulation result Map zoomed

Flood Inundation map Zoom Result

88
Flood Inundation map with terrain and google satellite

89
Annex C2: Flood Inundation Map for 25, 50 and 100 years return period.

Flood Inundation for 25 years

90
Flood Inundation for 50 years

91
Flood Inundation for 100 years

92